Expanding Access to Mobile Wireless Services Onboard Aircraft, 2615-2631 [2013-31203]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Docket, EPA/DC, William
Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC–
6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343–9263; fax number:
(202) 343–2342; email address:
GHGreporting@epa.gov. For technical
information, contact the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule Helpline at: https://
www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
ghgrule_contactus.htm. Alternatively,
contact Carole Cook at 202–343–9263.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of the proposed rule is
also be available through the WWW on
the EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting rule
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/
ghgrulemaking.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Today’s Action. In this
action, the EPA is providing notice that
it is extending the comment period on
the proposed rule titled ‘‘Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Program: Amendments
and Confidentiality Determinations for
Fluorinated Gas Production,’’ which
was published on November 19, 2013.
The original deadline for submitting
public comments on that rule was
January 21, 2014. The EPA is extending
that deadline to February 20, 2014. This
extension will provide the general
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
public additional time for public
participation and comments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Greenhouse gases, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 9, 2014.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–00651 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 27, 87, and 90
[WT Docket No. 13–301; FCC 13–157]
Expanding Access to Mobile Wireless
Services Onboard Aircraft
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
proposes to revise outdated rules and
adopt consistent new rules governing
mobile communications services aboard
airborne aircraft. These rule changes
would give airlines, subject to
applicable Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and Department
of Transportation (DoT) rules, the
choice of whether to enable mobile
communications services using an
Airborne Access System and, if so,
which specific services to enable. The
proposed rules would also replace an
existing patchwork of regulatory
prohibitions on airborne use of mobile
services in some, but not all, of the
heavily used mobile wireless bands
with a consistent regulatory framework
that explicitly forbids airborne use of
mobile services in those bands unless
they are operating on an aircraft
equipped with an Airborne Access
System.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments on or before
February 14, 2014. Submit reply
comments on or before March 17, 2014.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
comments should be submitted March
17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WT Docket No. 13–301 or
FCC 13–157, by any of the following
methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2615
D Mail: FCC Headquarters, 445 12th
St. SW., Washington, DC 20554.
D In addition to filing comments with
the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, via email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda Huetinck of the Mobility
Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, at (202) 418–7090 or
Amanda.Huetinck@fcc.gov. For
additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in
this document, contact Cathy Williams
at (202) 418–2918, or via the Internet at
PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2616
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
This NPRM seeks comment on a
potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the
Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement, the
Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on the requirement, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
the Commission seeks specific comment
on how it might ‘‘further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
Synopsis
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction and Background
1. By this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to
revise outdated rules and adopt
consistent new rules governing mobile
communications services aboard
airborne aircraft. These rule changes
would give airlines, subject to
applicable Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and Department
of Transportation (DoT) rules, the
choice of whether to enable mobile
communications services using an
Airborne Access System and, if so,
which specific services to enable. The
draft rules would also replace an
existing patchwork of regulatory
prohibitions on airborne use of mobile
services in some, but not all, of the
heavily used mobile bands with a
consistent regulatory framework that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
explicitly forbids airborne use of mobile
services in those bands unless they are
operating on an aircraft equipped with
an Airborne Access System. If adopted,
the rule changes would reduce
consumer confusion, increase protection
against harmful interference, improve
administrative efficiency, and facilitate
expanded access to broadband services
in flight. Additionally, while many
airlines offer in-flight Wi-Fi broadband
services, the proposals in this NPRM
would give airlines the option to allow
consumers to access broadband services
when airborne through their existing
wireless service providers, just as they
would on the ground. The NPRM does
not propose to mandate that airlines
permit any new airborne mobile
services. It does, however, provide a
path for interested airlines to authorize
increased consumer access to airborne
mobile broadband services across
licensed commercial mobile spectrum
bands in a safe, non-interfering manner.
2. In recent years, air carriers have
been enhancing their in-flight
communications service offerings to
meet the increasing consumer demand
for broadband connectivity on aircraft.
One study predicts that the number of
aircraft offering wireless connectivity
will reach 4,048 by the end of 2013
(representing 21 percent of the global
fleet), and will rise to 14,000 by 2022 (a
50 percent connectivity penetration in
commercial aircraft). This study also
projects that approximately 5,000 of
these aircraft will offer both Wi-Fi and
cellular options. According to one
survey of adult airline passengers, 69
percent of airline passengers that
brought a portable electronic device
(PED)—such as a tablet or smartphone—
onto an aircraft in the past 12 months
reported that they used their devices
during flight. The report did not
distinguish between transmitting PEDs
and non-transmitting PEDs. Also,
notably, in October 2013, the FAA
announced that, after performing
recommended assessments and tests,
airlines could safely expand passenger
use of PEDs during all phases of flight.
3. Internationally, more than forty
jurisdictions, including the European
Union (EU), Asia, and Australia, have
authorized the use of mobile
communications services on aircraft. To
the best of our knowledge, these
services have successfully operated
without causing harmful interference to
terrestrial commercial wireless
networks. (Throughout the NPRM we
refer to networks primarily providing
ground-based network services as
‘‘terrestrial’’ networks or licensees. This
colloquial usage is not intended to
invoke technical meanings of the term
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘terrestrial’’ that may be familiar in
other regulatory (e.g., FCC or
International Telecommunication
Union) contexts.) Given the rapidly
expanding demand for mobile
broadband services, our recent efforts to
improve consumers’ access to
broadband services on aircraft, and the
successful deployment of mobile
communications services on aircraft in
numerous other countries, we find that
it is in the public interest to bring the
benefits of mobile communications
services on aircraft to domestic
consumers. Specifically, we propose to:
(1) Remove existing, narrow
restrictions on airborne use of mobile
devices in the 800 MHz cellular and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) bands,
replacing them with a more
comprehensive framework
encompassing access to mobile
communications services in all mobile
wireless bands;
(2) Harmonize regulations governing
the operation of mobile devices on
airborne aircraft across all commercial
mobile spectrum bands; 1
(3) Add the authority to provide
mobile communications services on
airborne aircraft across all commercial
mobile spectrum bands to existing part
87 aircraft station licenses;
(4) Allow mobile communications
services on airborne aircraft only if
managed by an Airborne Access System
certified by the FAA, which would
control the emissions of onboard PEDs
by requiring them to remain at or near
their lowest transmitting power level;
(5) Limit authorization for mobile
communications services to aircraft
travelling at altitudes of more than 3,048
meters (approximately 10,000 feet)
above the ground;
(6) We also seek comment on
alternative authorization frameworks,
the potential impact of these proposals
on public safety and national security,
and issues related to the use of voice
services onboard aircraft.
4. Consistent with our continued
efforts to increase consumer access to
broadband and the FAA’s recent
actions, this proposal would provide
airlines with the technological tools to
1 For purposes of this Notice, ‘‘commercial mobile
spectrum bands’’ include: (1) the 800 MHz cellular
band (824–849 and 869–894 MHz); (2) SMR
spectrum within the bands (806–824 and 851–869
MHz and 896–901 and 935–940 MHz); (3) the
Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS)
band (1850–1915 and 1930–1995 MHz); (4) 700
MHz band (698–757 and 775–787 MHz); (5) the
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band (1710–
1755 and 2110–2155 MHz); (6) the Wireless
Communications Service (WCS) band (2305–2320
and 2345–2360 MHz); and AWS–4 (2000–2020 MHz
and 2180–2200 MHz). We would expect to add
other spectrum bands if and when they are
allocated for commercial mobile broadband use.
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
offer additional in-cabin
communications services to their
passengers at their discretion. Our
proposal is focused on data services, but
it is technology-neutral; we do not
propose to limit the use of mobile
communications services on airborne
aircraft to non-voice applications.
Deployment of such services, including
etiquette and other rules, would be at
the discretion of individual airlines,
within the context of any rules or
guidelines established by the FAA or
DoT.
A. FCC Regulations Limiting Airborne
Mobile Use
5. Commission rules governing the
use of airborne mobile devices vary
significantly among services.
Specifically, airborne use of the 800
MHz cellular band is prohibited and
airborne use of the 800 MHz SMR band
is prohibited on aircraft that typically
fly at altitudes over one mile. There are
no such restrictions on airborne use of
the AWS, PCS, WCS, 700 MHz, or
AWS–4 bands. As noted above resolving
these inconsistencies is one of the
primary goals of this proceeding.
6. Part 22 of the Commission’s rules
prohibits the airborne use of 800 MHz
cellular telephones, including the use of
such phones on commercial and private
aircraft. This prohibition was adopted in
1991 to guard against the threat of
harmful interference from airborne use
of cellular phones to terrestrial cellular
networks. The Commission’s
prohibition was not to ensure
interference-free operation of avionics
equipment. When the prohibition was
adopted, the Commission noted that a
cellular telephone used onboard an
airborne aircraft would have greater
range than a land-based handset, and its
signal would be received by multiple
terrestrial cell sites in a given market,
causing harmful interference. Moreover,
the Commission found that because a
cellular telephone can transmit on all
assigned 800 MHz cellular frequencies,
a single handset could interfere with
cellular systems in multiple cellular
market areas simultaneously. Thus, the
Commission concluded that ‘‘the need
for noninterference in all cellular
transmissions outweighs the benefits
that would be realized by allowing the
public to use cellular service in airborne
aircraft.’’
7. Similarly, the part 90 rules restrict
the use of SMR handsets while airborne
in certain circumstances. The altitude
restriction in § 90.423 prohibits
operations on aircraft that are regularly
flown at altitudes at one mile or above
and, consequently, essentially bans part
90 land mobile radio use on commercial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
airline flights. These rules were enacted
to prevent harmful interference with
land-based operations by the use of land
mobile frequencies aboard high-flying
aircraft, especially aircraft operated by
scheduled passenger airlines. The rules
governing all other commercial mobile
spectrum bands are silent with regard to
airborne operations.
B. 2004 Airborne Mobile NPRM
8. On December 15, 2004, the
Commission adopted the Airborne
Mobile NPRM, in which it proposed to
relax or replace the parts 22 and 90
restrictions on airborne use of cellular
mobile handsets. The Airborne Mobile
NPRM also included several proposals
to facilitate the use of wireless devices
onboard airborne aircraft, including
those used for broadband applications.
Overall, the proposals were intended to
minimize the potential for harmful
interference to terrestrial systems while
providing maximum flexibility to
wireless telecommunications carriers
seeking to address consumer demand
for air-ground connectivity.
9. Notably, the Airborne Mobile
NPRM proposed to require onboard use
of picocells to prevent harmful
interference to terrestrial mobile
networks. Under this proposal, airborne
picocells would have been used to
manage the power levels of mobile
handsets onboard aircraft to ensure that
they operated at or near their minimum
power levels. The Airborne Mobile
NPRM also sought comment on whether
this proposal should be applied to only
the 800 MHz cellular spectrum covered
by the current part 22 rule, or whether
the picocell requirement should be
expanded to include handsets and
devices operating on spectrum bands
under parts 24, 27, or 90.
10. The Commission received more
than 8,000 submissions in the docket.
However, few of the commenters
provided requested technical analyses.
Citing the insufficiency of the technical
record and finding that it would be
premature to decide the issues
presented in the Airborne Mobile NPRM
without additional information, the
Commission terminated the proceeding
on March 28, 2007. The Commission,
however, left open the possibility of
revisiting the issues raised in this
proceeding, should new technical
information become available.
C. International Developments
11. Since the Commission issued the
Airborne Mobile Termination Order in
2007, numerous foreign
communications administrations have
issued regulations that have
successfully allowed the non-interfering
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2617
use of mobile communications services
on airborne aircraft utilizing Airborne
Access Systems.
12. Most notably, in 2008, the
European Commission (EC) mandated
that EU member countries allocate the
1800 MHz band, which utilizes Global
System for Mobile Communications
(GSM) technology, above 3,000 meters
for mobile communications onboard
aircraft (MCA). The EC issued its
Decision following a Report and a
Decision from the Electronic
Communications Committee (ECC) of
the EU’s European Conference of Postal
and Telecommunications
Administrations (CEPT). CEPT MCA
Report 16 found that operating an
Airborne Access System-based mobile
communications system above 3,000
meters above ground level prevents
harmful interference to ground-based
mobile networks (in all studied bands in
which the onboard mobile terminals
would be capable of transmitting).
13. Pursuant to the EC Decision, the
communications administrations of all
twenty-seven EU member states
subsequently created licensing
mechanisms for airborne mobile
services in their individual
jurisdictions. On November 14, 2013,
the EC issued a new decision modifying
the existing EC Decision in order to
allow for additional frequency ranges
and technologies, such as UMTS and
LTE, to be used in aircraft. Prior to this
Decision, CEPT issued a Report on the
technical aspects of adding these new
frequencies and technologies.
14. Outside of the United States, two
third-party providers, OnAir and
AeroMobile Communications Ltd.
(AeroMobile), currently offer mobile
communications services on airborne
aircraft. OnAir provides such thirdparty services to airlines including
British Airways, Emirates, and Royal
Jordanian, while AeroMobile provides
such third-party services to airlines
including Emirates, SAS, and Virgin
Atlantic. According to OnAir,
approximately eighty countries across
Europe, the Middle East, North Africa,
Asia Pacific, North America, and Latin
America have authorized the use of its
service. As of May 2012, at least one
foreign air carrier, Virgin Atlantic, has
installed and is operating a system to
provide mobile communications
services on some aircraft on
transatlantic flights from the United
Kingdom to the United States.
15. We are not aware of any reported
cases of harmful interference to
terrestrial systems stemming from the
use of Airborne Access Systems since
airlines began offering mobile
communications services on airborne
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2618
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
aircraft. In response to an FAA inquiry
regarding the use of PEDs during flight,
Panasonic stated that since deployment
of the eXPhone system—a system for
providing mobile communications
services on aircraft—there has been no
harmful interference to aircraft systems
or terrestrial networks, nor have there
been any system failures. In comments
filed by AeroMobile in the same
proceeding, AeroMobile stated that it
has operated its Airborne Access
Systems since 2008 without any
reported instances of harmful
interference to avionics or other aircraft
systems, or to terrestrial mobile
networks.
D. Current FCC Authorization of
Airborne Broadband Access
16. The Commission first paved the
way for in-flight voice and data services
in 1990 when it allocated four
megahertz of spectrum for commercial
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.
This led to the deployment of service
offered via seat-back phones in many
commercial aircraft. Additionally, in
1998, the Commission granted to
AirCell, Inc. (AirCell) a waiver of
§ 22.925’s airborne cellular prohibition
to allow AirCell to use cellular
frequencies for in-flight communication
using specially designed equipment. In
2005, the Commission reconfigured the
800 MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service to facilitate the provision of
broadband service to passengers aboard
aircraft. After that, companies began to
offer Wi-Fi using unlicensed spectrum
on aircraft along with an air-to-ground
link.
17. In addition to the 800 MHz AirGround band, satellite spectrum also
has been used as an air-to-ground link.
The L-band Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS) has been used to provide data
service to and from aircraft since the
1990s. Beginning in 2001, the
Commission authorized, on an ad hoc
basis, the use of earth stations aboard
aircraft (ESAA) communicating with
Ku-band geosynchronous orbit (GSO)
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) space
stations to provide connectivity to
airborne aircraft. In December 2012, the
Commission adopted service and
technical rules for ESAA operations to
formalize ESAA as a means of providing
in-flight broadband services to
passengers and flight crews aboard
commercial airliners and private aircraft
(in conjunction with in-cabin Wi-Fi).
18. The Commission recently has
taken further action to expand access to
broadband services onboard aircraft and
improve the quality of services offered.
Notably, on March 29, 2013, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
(WTB) granted Gogo’s request of a
waiver of § 22.853 of the Commission’s
rules to allow the assignment of one
megahertz of LiveTV Inc.’s licensed
nationwide 800 MHz Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service license to Gogo.
Gogo now has access to all four
megahertz of nationwide 800 MHz AirGround spectrum, which Gogo asserts is
necessary to provide the full array of
high-speed wireless communications
services that consumers expect.
19. The Commission also has released
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
proposes to establish a new air-ground
mobile broadband service in the 14.0–
14.5 GHz band. The new service will
operate on a secondary, noninterference basis with FSS Earth-tospace communications. If the rules
proposed in that proceeding are
adopted, the new service would
significantly increase the capacity
available to aircraft for broadband
backhaul.
E. Other Federal Government Actions
20. In January 2013, the FAA
Administrator established the PED
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
in order to provide a forum for the U.S.
aviation community and PED
manufacturers to review comments
received from the FAA’s Notice of
Policy/Request for Comments regarding
PED policy and guidance. The ARC was
tasked to make recommendations to
further clarify and provide guidance on
allowing additional passenger PED
usage without compromising the
continued safe operation of the aircraft.
The ARC transmitted its report to the
FAA Administrator on September 30,
2013, and the FAA released the report
publicly on October 31, 2013.
21. The ARC concluded that most
commercial airplanes can tolerate radio
interference signals from PEDs.
However, PEDs with cellular
capabilities must disable those
capabilities during flight. The ARC
recommended that, subject to this
condition, PEDs be permitted to operate
‘‘gate-to-gate’’ provided that the airline
operators and aircraft manufacturers
certify their aircraft to demonstrate
‘‘tolerance’’ of emissions from PEDs.
While cell phones were excluded from
the scope of the ARC Report, the ARC
did recommend that the FAA consult
with the Commission to review our
current rules. On October 31, 2013, the
FAA announced that, based on the ARC
Report, it had determined that airlines
can safely expand passenger use of PEDs
during all phases of flight and provided
airlines with implementation
guidelines.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. Discussion
22. In the six years since the
Commission issued the Airborne Mobile
Termination Order, the mobile
communications landscape has
undergone a series of dramatic changes.
Global mobile data traffic increased by
70 percent from 2011 to 2012 and,
driven by widespread adoption of
smartphones, tablets, and other high
data use devices, it is projected to
increase thirteen-fold by 2017.
Consumers are ever more dependent on
reliable high speed connectivity for
these devices for personal
communications, business, and
entertainment. Moreover, as noted,
numerous international administrations
have adopted rules for the safe, noninterfering use of mobile services on
airborne aircraft utilizing Airborne
Access Systems. The successful
widespread international adoption of
these systems demonstrates the
technical viability of mobile
communications services on airborne
aircraft today.
23. In light of the increasing demand
for mobile communications services on
airborne aircraft and widespread
confirmation of its technical viability,
we propose to revise our rules to enable
domestic and international travelers to
access mobile services onboard aircraft
flying in U.S. airspace. To that end, we
propose to: (1) Remove existing
Commission restrictions on airborne use
of mobile devices in the 800 MHz
cellular and 800 MHz SMR bands; (2)
harmonize regulations governing the
operation of mobile devices on airborne
aircraft across all commercial mobile
spectrum bands; and (3) implement a
comprehensive licensing and regulatory
framework to facilitate access to mobile
communications services on aircraft.
These proposals are consistent with our
longstanding commitment to facilitate
universal broadband access, promote
investment and innovation, and
encourage efficient, flexible use of
spectrum. We seek comment on these
proposals.
24. The proposals in this NPRM
would also require airlines to install
Airborne Access Systems if they choose
to provide mobile communications
services on airborne aircraft. As
described below, the Airborne Access
System incorporates hardware and
software to enable the provision of
service and to manage services onboard
the aircraft. In practice, the system
would connect wireless devices on the
aircraft operating on licensed wireless
frequencies to a terrestrial network via
satellite or air-ground links. While
business models may vary, under one
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
model, passengers on a flight with an
Airborne Access System would be able
to access the wireless service to which
they subscribe when above 3,048 meters
(10,000 feet) through the Airborne
Access System, and would be billed for
the service directly by their service
provider.
25. In this NPRM, we also seek
comment on the alternative licensing
and regulatory frameworks for the
provision of mobile communications
services on airborne aircraft, the
potential impact of these proposals on
public safety and national security, and
any potential operational issues related
to the use of mobile services, including
voice, onboard aircraft. We are
committed to working closely with
other federal agencies that have
expertise and may have more
appropriate jurisdiction over some of
these operational areas.
26. Throughout the NPRM, where we
seek comment on the costs and benefits
of a proposal, we ask that commenters
take into account costs and benefits that
result from the implementation of the
particular rules that could be adopted,
including any proposed requirement or
potential alternative requirement.
Further, to the extent possible,
commenters should provide specific
data and information, such as actual or
estimated dollar figures for each specific
cost or benefit addressed, including a
description of how the data or
information was calculated or obtained,
and any supporting documentation or
other evidentiary support.
A. Changes to Current Rules Restricting
Airborne Mobile Broadband Use
27. As an initial matter, we propose
to remove or modify the current
restrictions on airborne mobile
operations in parts 22 and 90 of the
Commission’s rules. We propose to
replace these restrictions with
references to a revised authorization
regime under part 87 of the
Commission’s rules that would allow
aircraft station licensees to provide
mobile communications services using
an Airborne Access System. We seek
comment on whether, in light of the
proposals set forth herein and recent
technological advances, these
restrictions remain necessary to prevent
harmful interference to terrestrial
mobile networks.
28. We also propose to add cross
references to the new part 87 airborne
mobile service authorization to parts 22,
24, 27, and 90 as set forth in this NPRM.
(This proceeding does not address
paging services authorized under part
22 of the Commission’s rules. This
NPRM is primarily concerned with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
facilitating the deployment of airborne
mobile broadband services and, as such,
paging services are beyond the scope of
this proposal.) We propose to make the
rules governing airborne mobile service
consistent across all commercial mobile
spectrum bands, thereby reducing
confusion, improving administrative
efficiency, and promoting Airborne
Access System measures that will
permit the provision of mobile
communications services on aircraft
across all commercial mobile spectrum
bands. We seek comment on these
proposals. Parties that oppose the
removal of the extant bans or the
harmonization of airborne mobile access
rules should provide detailed technical
and legal analyses to support their
positions.
B. Airborne Access Systems
1. Potential Harmful Interference From
Uncontrolled Airborne Mobile Devices
29. Mobile devices typically connect
to a wireless network through the
nearest cell site that can serve the
device. As the distance between the
devices and cell sites increases, signals
are attenuated by terrain and obstacles
such as buildings, and blocked by the
curvature of the earth. However, an
uncontrolled wireless device on an
airborne aircraft could potentially cause
co-channel interference at multiple cell
sites. This is because, even though the
airborne wireless signal becomes weaker
with increasing height above the
ground, unlike the terrestrial case, it is
not attenuated by terrain and obstacles,
and it is not affected by the curvature of
the earth. Thus, the signal from an
airborne handset with an unobstructed
line of sight may remain sufficiently
strong as the device attempts to access
multiple terrestrial sites, causing
harmful interference or other
undesirable effects to terrestrial systems.
We concur with the conclusions in the
CEPT MCA Reports that interactions
between mobile terminals onboard
aircraft and terrestrial mobile networks
are possible unless managed properly.
Unmanaged airborne mobile devices
will attempt to connect and in some
cases will succeed in temporarily
connecting to a terrestrial system,
causing harmful interference and
disruption to the system it is connected
to and to surrounding systems.
2. Benefits of Airborne Access Systems
30. As set forth above, the current
parts 22 and 90 prohibitions on mobile
communications services on aircraft
were designed to guard against the
threat of harmful interference from
airborne use of mobile devices to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2619
terrestrial wireless networks. Airborne
Access Systems are used to minimize
the potential for airborne wireless
devices interfering with terrestrial
networks. The most common Airborne
Access System in use internationally
today consists of an airborne picocell
and a network control unit (NCU). In
effect, an airborne picocell is a low
power base station transceiver installed
in the aircraft for the purpose of
communicating with (and controlling
the operations of) mobile handsets or
other transmitting electronic devices
onboard an aircraft. The picocell
controls the power levels of all
transmitting mobile broadband devices
operating onboard aircraft, keeping
them at or near their minimum output
power. A picocell is analogous to an inbuilding distributed antenna system
(like those used in large buildings,
malls, etc.) for use in the aircraft. The
signal travels from the handset to the
picocell, which then relays the call to
the ground via a separate air-ground
link, e.g., via a satellite band or the 800
MHz Air-Ground band, after which it
can be transferred to the terrestrial
network. In addition, the NCU raises the
noise floor within the cabin to prevent
devices from attempting to
communicate with terrestrial networks.
Under the rules proposed below,
terrestrial service providers and aircraft
station licensees would be permitted to
negotiate commercial agreements to
facilitate access to terrestrial networks.
We note that for the Airborne Access
Systems to effectively prevent cell
phones that have the capability to
operate outside the network from
attempting to communicate with
terrestrial networks and prevent
potential interference to avionics, the
noise floor likely would have to be
raised onboard aircraft in all
commercial mobile spectrum bands. We
seek comment on whether airline
passengers would be capable of
accessing broadband services onboard
aircraft over commercial mobile
spectrum bands absent an agreement
between their terrestrial mobile service
provider and the aircraft station
licensee.
31. Used in this manner, Airborne
Access Systems appear to be an effective
means of providing airline passengers
with mobile broadband connectivity,
while preventing harmful interference
to terrestrial wireless networks. Indeed,
as noted above, Airborne Access
Systems are used to provide mobile
broadband connectivity on flights in
Europe and Asia. To date, we are
unaware of any instances of harmful
interference to terrestrial systems
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2620
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
resulting from the use of PEDs in
conjunction with an Airborne Access
System on airborne aircraft. While these
international systems primarily utilize
GSM technology, such use also is now
permissible with other mobile
technologies such as CDMA and LTE.
We seek comment on the use of nonGSM mobile technologies onboard
aircraft and ask commenters to submit
technical analyses and studies to
support their arguments. We also seek
comment on whether the potential for
harmful interference to terrestrial
networks could vary depending on how
heavily Airborne Access Systems are
used. Further, while we believe that
airborne picocells are a proven
technology and could be used as
effective Airborne Access Systems on
domestic flights, consistent with our
commitment to technological neutrality,
we propose to permit any type of
Airborne Access System that meets the
technical requirements set forth in the
rules and any applicable rules and
approval procedures required by the
FAA.
3. Technical Requirements
32. Based on the available research
and international practices, we
tentatively conclude that Airborne
Access Systems can be used to facilitate
airborne mobile broadband access
without causing harmful interference to
terrestrial networks. We therefore
propose to allow airborne use of mobile
devices controlled by a properly
managed Airborne Access System.
33. Our review of existing operations
reveals that, for an Airborne Access
System to effectively manage emissions
from mobile broadband-capable devices,
certain technical restrictions must be
enforced. Specifically, three types of
devices transmitting aboard the aircraft
must be limited in power to prevent
harmful interference to terrestrial
networks: (1) The mobile device; (2) the
picocell; and (3) the NCU. Measures that
may be taken to limit power include,
but are not necessarily limited to,
mobile power restrictions, aircraft
picocell power restrictions, NCU power
and/or technology limitations, altitude
restrictions, and methods to prevent an
airborne mobile phone from accessing
the terrestrial CMRS network. We use
the technical analyses and conclusions
released by CEPT earlier this year on
these matters as a baseline for our
technical inquiries. We note that this
report focused only on European
commercial mobile spectrum bands, and
believe that CEPT’s findings are a solid
foundation on which we can adopt
technical requirements. We seek
comments on this belief, as well as on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
the potential implications of the use of
different spectrum bands in the United
States. Are there any differences
between the commercial mobile
spectrum bands used in the EU and
those used in the United States that
would affect the relevant CEPT
findings? We also ask commenters to
provide us with any tests or technical
analyses that have been performed
regarding the use of Airborne Access
Systems over commercial mobile
spectrum bands in use in the United
States. We note that the international
systems appear to offer service only in
a particular frequency band or bands.
Should Airborne Access Systems be
permitted to operate only in particular
frequency bands? If so, which bands and
what impact might this have on
competition?
a. Mobile Device
34. Unmanaged airborne PEDs will
attempt to connect and in some cases
will succeed in temporarily connecting
to a terrestrial system, causing harmful
interference and disruption to the
system it is connected to and to
surrounding systems. Thus, airborne
mobile devices must be operated at
sufficiently low power levels to prevent
harmful interference with terrestrial
broadband networks while still being
able to communicate with the Airborne
Access System.
35. CEPT MCA Report 48 concluded
that an Airborne Access System would
not interfere with terrestrial networks
provided it met certain technical
criteria. It defined acceptable radiation
from various sources for a point outside
the aircraft at various altitudes. At 3,000
meters (approximately 9,842 feet), the
report specifies an aggregate effective
isotropic radiated power (EIRP) of 3.1
dBm/3.84 megahertz outside the aircraft
for up to 20 individual mobile UMTS
devices limited to ¥6 dBm/3.84
megahertz. The report also specifies a
limit of 1.7 dBm/5 megahertz for
individual LTE devices transmitting at 5
dBm/5 megahertz at 3,000 meters.
Because the analysis in CEPT MCA
Report 48 is limited to frequency bands
utilized within the EU, we request
comment on whether the same findings
are applicable to systems operating on
bands used for commercial mobile radio
services in the United States and
whether any adjustments to CEPT MCA
Report 48’s findings or methods should
be made. For example, the report
assumed operation in the 2100 MHz and
1800 MHz bands. The limitations
discussed above, if applicable, could be
adjusted to account for changes in free
space path loss for operation on U.S.
spectrum. We encourage commenters to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submit relevant data and studies
pertaining to bands used for commercial
mobile radio services in the United
States. What, if any, adjustments to
these assumptions must be made for
other mobile technologies? We also
request comment on whether it is
necessary to limit the number of
mobiles in operation, or if an aggregate
limit for emissions from the aircraft is
sufficient to protect terrestrial systems
from harmful interference. Is such an
approach practical? Should the rules
require the Airborne Access System to
limit the maximum in-cabin transmit
power of individual mobile units rather
than specifying the allowable aggregate
EIRP outside the aircraft? Commenters
should include technical analyses to
support their proposals, including the
costs and benefits of adopting a
particular approach.
b. Aircraft Picocell
35. The aircraft picocell
communicates with the individual
mobile devices onboard the aircraft and
with its air-to-ground or satellite
backhaul link. The power of onboard
picocells must be limited to prevent
harmful interference to the terrestrial
network. CEPT MCA Report 48 limits
the EIRP outside the aircraft from
picocell transmissions to 1.0 dBm/3.84
megahertz for UMTS and 1.0 dBm/
megahertz for LTE. We request comment
on whether these levels are appropriate
and can be applied to operations on U.S.
commercial mobile spectrum bands. We
also encourage commenters to submit
relevant data and studies pertaining to
bands used for commercial mobile radio
services in the United States. What
would be an appropriate method of
making measurements or otherwise
determining compliance? How should
the Commission approach equipment
authorization of picocells given that
compliance would be determined by the
aircraft in which the system is installed?
We also request comment on whether
we should limit the type of technology
utilized for communications between
the picocell and onboard mobiles to
minimize the risk of harmful
interference with terrestrial networks.
We note that in its initial report, CEPT
limited its analysis of communication
services aboard aircraft to picocells
operating with GSM technology but its
more recent report offers expanded
analysis on both UMTS and LTE. From
an interference standpoint, are some
technologies used on airborne aircraft
less likely to cause harmful interference
to terrestrial networks than others?
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
c. Network Control Unit
36. The NCU prevents mobile devices
from connecting to the terrestrial
network while on the aircraft.
Uncontrolled, some mobile devices are
capable of contacting terrestrial
networks, even at altitudes exceeding
3,048 meters (10,000 feet). The NCU
raises the noise floor within the aircraft
cabin to prevent onboard mobile devices
from communicating with the terrestrial
network. NCUs also must be limited in
power to prevent harmful interference
to terrestrial networks. CEPT MCA
Report 48 specifies for operations in the
2600 MHz (2500–2570 MHz and 2620–
2690 MHz) band a limit at 3000 meters
of 1.9 dBm/4.75 megahertz and for
operations in the 800 MHz (790–862
MHz) band the limit is 0.87 dBm/10
megahertz. The EC previously
established limits for the 460–470 MHz,
921–960 MHz, 1805–1880 MHz, and
2110–2170 MHz bands in its Decision.
Those findings were reaffirmed by CEPT
MCA Report 48. We request comment
on whether these levels are appropriate
and can be applied to operations on
domestic mobile spectrum bands. As
CEPT MCA Report 48 limits vary by
frequency band, which of these limits
would be appropriate for each of the
bands used for commercial mobile
service in the United States? We
encourage commenters to submit
relevant data and studies pertaining to
bands used for commercial mobile radio
services in the United States. We also
seek comment on whether there are
other technical solutions that could
prevent an onboard mobile device from
accessing the terrestrial network.
37. We also seek comment generally
on CEPT’s findings and technical
proposals. We ask that commenters
address: (1) Whether Airborne Access
Systems can effectively prevent harmful
interference into terrestrial wireless
networks; (2) whether alternative or
supplemental technological solutions
would be more effective; (3) whether the
proposed power levels are appropriate;
and (4) what additional technical
specifications may be needed to ensure
that these systems and airborne mobile
broadband devices do not interfere with
existing terrestrial networks. We also
request comment on any other technical
restrictions or requirements that may be
necessary to prevent harmful
interference to terrestrial CMRS
networks or to ensure reliable
communications for mobile
communications services on aircraft, or
whether an alternative technical
solution may be more appropriate in the
domestic marketplace. Commenters
should include technical analyses to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
support their proposals, including the
costs and benefits of adopting a
particular approach.
38. We reiterate that the FAA is
responsible for regulations regarding the
safety of passengers and crew aboard
domestic aircraft. As such, regardless of
the ultimate disposition of this
proceeding, all elements of the Airborne
Access Systems and any permissible
airborne mobile devices remain subject
to applicable FAA rules. In addition,
elements of these systems may be
subject to FAA certification, testing, and
approval; the FAA has a comprehensive
process by which it certifies all aspects
of commercial and general aviation
aircraft, and any Airborne Access
System presumably would be subject to
these procedures. In addition, in
response to the ARC Report, the FAA
has adopted procedures to test and
certify that aircraft manufactured in the
United States are tolerant of PED
emissions.
39. Although any FAA actions related
to the issues in this proceeding are
outside the Commission’s scope, in
order to fully comprehend this
regulatory framework, we seek
information regarding any aspect of the
FAA’s authority regarding Airborne
Access Systems that we should
appropriately consider in this
proceeding. We reiterate that we are
committed to working closely with
other federal agencies that have
expertise and may have more
appropriate jurisdiction in these areas.
40. Moreover, we note that, within the
context of applicable FCC, FAA, and
DoT rules, individual airlines will have
flexibility to deploy or not deploy
mobile communications services on an
aircraft-by-aircraft basis. For example,
abroad, OnAir and AeroMobile offer
airlines the option of selecting which
type of mobile communications services
they offer, and foreign airlines have
chosen to offer the mobile
communications services in different
ways. For example, Ireland’s Aer Lingus
allows texting and Internet access using
mobile communications but does not
allow the use of voice calls in the cabin,
while the UK’s Virgin Atlantic offers
passengers the option of accessing the
Internet, texting, and making voice calls
through their mobile communications
system.
C. Airborne Commercial Mobile Use
41. We propose to allow aircraft
station licensees to provide airborne
commercial mobile services as part of
their aircraft station license under part
87 of the Commission’s rules and seek
comment on alternative authorization
methodologies. Under any airborne
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2621
authorization scheme, Airborne Access
Systems would be required to manage
in-flight mobile use. Mobile
communications services controlled by
authorized Airborne Access Systems
would be permitted across all
commercial mobile spectrum bands at
altitudes above 3,048 meters (10,000
feet). These authorizations would cover
only in-cabin operations. Moreover, any
authorization method would require an
agreement with separately authorized
satellite or air-to-ground backhaul links
to transmit mobile data from the aircraft
to terrestrial networks.
1. Part 87
Authorization Methodology
a. Part 87 Aircraft License
Modification
42. We propose to revise part 87 of the
Commission’s rules to permit mobile
communications services on aircraft as
one element of an aircraft station license
and seek comment on this proposal, as
well as alternative authorization
frameworks. Part 87 of the
Commission’s rules governs the
authorization and use of radio services
onboard aircraft, between aircraft, and
between air and ground stations for
aircraft travelling domestically and U.S.
aircraft travelling to international
destinations (including international
waters). See 47 CFR 87.1, et seq. We
note that U.S.-registered civil aircraft
licensed for an Airborne Access System
would bear the responsibility of
ascertaining and complying with the
applicable laws, regulations, and rules
of any foreign nation in which they seek
to operate. Unless exempted, airlines
must obtain an aircraft station license to
cover any radio equipment or services
other than certain two-way VHF, radar,
or emergency locator services. Under
certain conditions, two or more aircraft
having a common owner or operator
may be issued a single fleet license to
cover all aircraft stations in a given fleet.
We seek comment on how this proposal
would work with FAA’s established
airframe dependent equipment
certification procedures.
43. Authorizing the proposed use in
this manner would allow airlines and
other commercial aircraft operators to
install and operate Airborne Access
Systems as part of their existing aircraft
station or fleet licenses. Aircraft station
licensees would be required to file for
a modification of their existing aircraft
station or fleet licenses on FCC Form
605 to include the newly designated
airborne mobile communications
authorization. To the extent that an
aircraft operator does not have an
aircraft station license, that aircraft
operator would, under this proposal, be
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2622
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
required to apply for an aircraft station
license in order to operate an Airborne
Access System. Licensees would be
permitted to contract with third parties
to install and operate Airborne Access
System aboard licensed aircraft.
However, aircraft station licensees
would retain sole responsibility for
ensuring that such equipment is
installed and operated in accordance
with all applicable rules.
44. The airborne radio environment is
interference-sensitive and must be
closely controlled by aircraft station
licensees to ensure stable operation of
mission critical equipment, the safety of
aircraft passengers and crew, and
compliance with all applicable rules
and regulations. Aircraft station
licensees currently manage this unique
environment for a wide variety of radio
services in accordance with FCC and
FAA rules. As such, they may be well
positioned to ensure that Airborne
Access Systems are properly operated
and integrated into the existing device
ecosystem. Indeed, regardless of the
authorization scheme we select, no
Airborne Access System could be
installed and operated without the
permission, supervision, and control of
aircraft station licensees. In addition,
modifying existing aircraft fleet or
station licenses to include proposed
airborne mobile communications use
should not impose significant
administrative burdens on applicants or
the Commission. Finally, this proposal
is roughly analogous to the successful
authorization regimes adopted by other
administrations in recent years.
45. We propose to retain the current
licensing assignment methods
applicable to part 87 aircraft station
licenses. Although we propose to permit
licensees to provide a new service
offering, the underlying functions of
aircraft station licenses remains the
same. Under this proposal, existing
aircraft station licensees seeking to
provide mobile communications
services on aircraft could request a
modification of their current
authorizations to permit operation of an
Airborne Access System, and applicants
for new aircraft station authorizations
could indicate on their applications
their intention to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft. We
seek comment on whether such license
modifications must be placed on public
notice for thirty days pursuant to
section 309 of the Communications Act.
We seek comment on this proposed
authorization approach, as well as the
alternative authorization mechanisms
listed below, and on what changes, if
any, may need to be made to the table
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
of allocations to reflect this licensing
regime.
46. We acknowledge that, with
respect to the NCU transmissions and
the communications between the
picocell and the consumer mobile
devices, the Airborne Access System
proposed here would operate on
spectrum licensed to mobile service
providers for terrestrial wireless use.
However, we do not propose to modify
the existing rights of commercial mobile
licensees or otherwise impede their
ability to provide mobile services within
their license areas. Under our proposal,
aircraft operators should be able to offer
access to wireless services to the limited
confines of the in-cabin environment in
a safe and effective manner—and
thereby extend broadband service to an
otherwise difficult-to-serve market
segment—while protecting incumbent
terrestrial licensees from harmful
interference and without infringing
upon incumbents’ existing operations.
We seek comment on this proposal,
including potential impacts it may have
on the existing rights of terrestrial
mobile licensees.
b. Alternative Authorization Methods
47. We also seek comment on
alternative authorization methods. For
completeness, we describe several
alternatives below, although we
acknowledge that some of these
methods may suffer from deficiencies
that make them less desirable in a
public interest analysis. We also request
comment on other approaches that are
not enumerated below. We encourage
commenters to provide details on how
any authorization regime, including the
part 87 authorization method described
above, would work in practice
(including the relationship with other
licensees or services authorized in the
same frequency bands), how it would
further the various public interest goals
enumerated in this NPRM, and its
relative costs and benefits.
48. Non-Exclusive License. One
alternative authorization method would
establish an Airborne Access System
Service pursuant to which applicants
could file for non-exclusive licenses to
provide airborne mobile services.
Eligibility for such licenses would be
limited to applicants with appropriate
commercial agreements with aircraft
operators to operate such systems on
specific aircraft. Would such an
authorization system provide additional
benefits to the public or to aircraft
station licensees? Under this alternative
authorization scheme, would the
airlines retain sufficient control over the
in-cabin environment to ensure that
services are provided safely and
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
effectively? Are there any additional
eligibility conditions that should be
required of licensees under this
authorization method?
49. Secondary Markets. Another
option would authorize operation of an
Airborne Access System pursuant to
spectrum lease agreements with mobile
wireless service providers. We observe
that for any given flight, an aircraft is
likely to fly above license areas for
many different licensees. Moreover, the
licensees implicated will likely vary
throughout the course of the flight. The
Commission has issued thousands of
geographic mobile licenses. There are
over 14,166 licenses, held by
approximately 788 unique entities
(based on licensee FCC Registration
Number), for the spectrum bands within
the scope of this NPRM. Would this
authorization method be administrable
in practice? How would the
Commission ensure that a leasing
arrangement involves the necessary
parties? Would it require the
cooperation of every mobile wireless
service provider? Would the use of a
leasing framework introduce market
efficiencies or inefficiencies not present
in other authorization models? Under
this alternative, how would the
Commission determine the boundaries
of mobile licenses along a flight path
and at various altitudes, especially
considering the curvature of the earth?
50. Auctioned Sky Licenses.
Alternately, should the Commission
create nationwide or geographic ‘‘sky
licenses’’ and allow eligible applicants
to bid on these licenses via auction?
Would such an authorization system
provide unique benefits to the public or
to aircraft station licensees? How would
the Commission determine the
geographic boundaries of such licenses
and the proper number of licensees for
each geographic area? How would such
a licensing construct affect the ability of
airlines to manage their in-cabin
environment? Would such an
authorization method create ‘‘artificial’’
limitations on market-based agreements
between airlines and Airborne Access
System providers?
51. Unlicensed Use or License-byRule. Should the Commission authorize
unlicensed use of an Airborne Access
System pursuant to our part 15 rules?
Alternatively, would a license-by-rule
approach be appropriate? Both methods
appear, on first consideration, to raise
significant issues with respect to
providing airlines sufficient ability to
manage mobile access in flight and to
mitigate potential harmful interference
into terrestrial networks. Do
commenters agree? How would such
authorization mechanisms work in
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
practice? Would they require revisions
to existing rule parts? Would these
methodologies offer appropriate
Commission oversight of the mobile
communications services being
proposed?
52. Commenters that advocate an
alternative authorization methodology
should support their arguments with
detailed technical and legal analyses.
Commenters should also address how
the issues raised in Sections III.C.2. and
3. below would apply for any alternative
authorization scheme.
2. Scope of the Authorization
53. To facilitate the widespread use of
airborne mobile data services, we
propose to authorize aircraft station
licensees to operate Airborne Access
Systems that encompass all domestic
commercial mobile spectrum bands.
Most broadband capable mobile devices
are capable of accessing multiple
commercial mobile spectrum bands
which vary by device and mobile
service provider. We tentatively
conclude that permitting Airborne
Access Systems to operate across all
such bands would provide greater
access to broadband data for the
travelling public, and is consistent with
the Commission’s longstanding policy
of technological neutrality. However,
our proposal does not require a
compliant Airborne Access System to
cover all commercial mobile spectrum
bands or wireless technologies. We seek
comments on our proposal to not
require Airborne Access Systems to
cover all commercial mobile spectrum
bands, including on whether this
approach may increase the risk of
harmful interference to terrestrial
networks.
54. We further propose that airborne
commercial broadband operations be
permitted only at altitudes exceeding
3,048 meters (10,000 feet). The available
research suggests that, at those altitudes,
there is little to no risk of harmful
interference into terrestrial mobile
networks from properly managed
airborne mobile operations. Moreover,
this service floor is consistent with the
rules established by the EU for airborne
GSM mobile use. As noted above, we
are unaware of any instances of harmful
interference from properly managed
airborne mobile broadband operations at
altitudes above 3,048 meters (10,000
feet) into terrestrial mobile networks.
We seek comment on whether the 3,048
meter (10,000 feet) service floor is
appropriate for all mobile technologies
(e.g., CDMA, GSM, and LTE) and
spectrum bands. We also seek comment
as to whether we should allow Airborne
Access Systems to remain operational
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
below 3,048 meters (10,000 feet), even if
mobile communications services are not
permitted at that altitude. Could low
altitude Airborne Access System use
actually help mitigate harmful
interference by preventing activated
mobile devices from attempting to
access terrestrial networks? We
encourage commenters to support their
arguments with detailed technical
studies and analyses for domestic
commercial mobile spectrum bands and
technologies, including detailed
analyses of the costs and benefits of any
such proposals.
55. We tentatively conclude that, if
adopted, our proposal to permit the
provision of mobile communications
services on aircraft-by-aircraft station
licensees at altitudes above 3,048 meters
(10,000 feet) would promote the public
interest by expanding mobile broadband
coverage to consumers in an efficient,
non-interfering manner. The
deployment of Airborne Access Systems
aboard commercial aircraft could
provide significant public benefits
without harming existing terrestrial
licensees in the band. Moreover,
terrestrial mobile licensees could benefit
from this new commercial service
offering if they choose to partner with
aircraft station licensees on commercial
connection agreements. We seek
comment on these proposals and
conclusions as well as viable alternative
models. Commenters should provide
detailed legal and technical analyses in
support of their proposals, including
detailed analyses of the costs and
benefits of any such proposals.
3. Other Authorization and Licensing
Issues
56. Regulatory Status. While aircraft
stations authorized under part 87 are
typically considered private mobile
radio services, we propose to allow
aircraft station licensees choosing to
offer mobile communications services
using an Airborne Access System to
specify their regulatory status
depending on the service they are
providing. The Commission’s current
radio service license application
requires an applicant for mobile services
to identify the regulatory status of the
service(s) it intends to provide because
service offerings may bear on the
applicant’s eligibility to be a licensee,
and other statutory and regulatory
requirements. In applying that model,
an applicant is permitted to choose
among several regulatory classifications
(e.g., common carrier, non-common
carrier, or private, internal
communications), or a combination
thereof, and prospective airborne mobile
licensees may benefit from a similar
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2623
approach. We seek comment on the
merits of applying a similar licensing
approach to the provision of mobile
communications services on aircraft and
ask that commenters discuss the costs
and benefits of this approach. We also
seek comment on whether there are any
obligations under a particular
classification that should not apply to
mobile communications services on
aircraft. For example, should an aircraft
station licensee that elects a common
carrier regulatory status be required to
comply with all rules applicable to
CMRS licensees under part 20 of the
Commission’s rules given the limited
scope of the in-cabin service offering?
For example, § 20.15 identifies
requirements relating to Title II of the
Communications Act that are applicable
to CMRS licensees. See 47 CFR 20.15.
Such Title II requirements include the
obligation to provide service ‘‘upon
reasonable request therefor,’’ and at a
‘‘just and reasonable’’ rate, 47 U.S.C.
201, as well as the requirement to
provide services without ‘‘unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges,
practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services.’’ 47 U.S.C. 202.
Other obligations identified in part 20
include 911 service, hearing aid
compatibility as well as roaming. See 47
CFR 20.12, 20.18, 20.19.
57. If the Commission permits an
aircraft station licensee to choose its
regulatory status in this manner, we
propose that such licensees must
identify their regulatory status on the
FCC Form 605. Form 605 would be
modified to incorporate this proposal.
We also propose that if a licensee
changes the service it offers such that it
would be inconsistent with its
regulatory status, the licensee must
notify the Commission. Further, we
propose that licensees must file the
notice within 30 days of a change made
without the need for prior Commission
approval. We seek comment on whether
a different time period should apply
where the change results in the
discontinuance, reduction, or
impairment of the existing service. We
seek comment on alternative proposals
regarding changes to the regulatory
status of a mobile communications
services on aircraft provider and the
costs and benefits of such proposals.
58. Given our proposal to allow an
aircraft station licensee to choose its
regulatory status, we note that all
Commission licensees are subject to the
provisions of section 310 of the Act.
Section 310 requires the Commission to
review foreign investment in radio
station licenses and imposes specific
restrictions on who may hold certain
types of radio licenses. Specifically,
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2624
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
section 310(a) of the Act expressly
prohibits a foreign government or its
representative from holding any radio
license. Further, section 310(b) places
additional restrictions on who can hold
a broadcast, common carrier,
aeronautical en route and aeronautical
fixed radio station license. In particular,
the foreign ownership restrictions in
sections 310(b)(3) and (b)(4) may be
implicated for those airlines that have
foreign ownership—whether
governmental or non-governmental—
where the airline provider seeks
authorization to provide a common
carrier service under the rules adopted
in this proceeding. We therefore
tentatively conclude that we should
revise FCC Form 605 to require all
applicants to answer foreign ownership
questions to ensure compliance with
section 310. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
59. Connection with Terrestrial
Networks. The rules governing
connection with terrestrial networks
would vary depending on the regulatory
classification selected by a given aircraft
station licensee. Aircraft station
licensees that choose to register as
CMRS providers would be subject to
applicable part 20 and common carrier
obligations. The requirements
applicable to a regulatory classification
would govern the rights and obligations
of licensees’ connections to terrestrial
networks. All licensees would be
permitted to enter into commercial
agreements with terrestrial mobile
licensees for connection to their
terrestrial wireless networks. We seek
comment on the costs and benefits of
this approach and any other approaches
that may be used to connect mobile
communications services on aircraft
with terrestrial networks.
60. Handset Authorization. Section
301 of the Communications Act requires
a valid FCC license to operate a radio
frequency transmitter, including a
wireless handset, aircard, or other
mobile broadband device. This statutory
requirement is reflected in the
Commission’s rules, which require
either an FCC license or licensee
consent to operate a station in the
Wireless Radio Services. Our proposal
grants aircraft station licensees
authorization to operate Airborne
Access Systems on commercial mobile
spectrum bands. As the definition of
Wireless Radio Services includes
services provided pursuant to part 87 of
the Commission’s rules, we conclude
that, for purposes of airborne mobile
communications services operations,
wireless devices can be operated as
subscriber equipment under the aircraft
station license, consistent with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
proposed rules set forth in this NPRM.
We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
61. Section 333. Section 333 of the
Communications Act states that ‘‘[n]o
person shall willfully or maliciously
interfere with or cause interference to
any radio communications of any
station licensed or authorized by or
under this Act. . . .’’ The proposed
Airborne Access Systems likely will
operate by maintaining transmissions
from mobile devices operating on
commercial mobile spectrum bands at
or near their lowest power level, thereby
preventing these devices from
attempting to access terrestrial base
stations. We tentatively conclude that,
pursuant to § 1.903 of the Commission’s
rules, mobile units would be deemed to
be authorized and operated under the
aircraft station license. Accordingly, we
tentatively conclude that operation of an
Airborne Access System to prevent
mobile transmissions from affecting
terrestrial base stations constitutes a
proper network management function
and is not the willful or malicious
interference at issue in section 333. We
seek comment on these tentative
conclusions.
62. Federal Spectrum. Most of the
Airborne Access Systems currently
authorized by foreign countries operate,
at least partially, in the 1800 MHz band,
consistent with international
commercial allocation of this band. It is
conceivable that U.S.-registered aircraft
that wish to offer airborne mobile
communications services will choose
Airborne Access Systems with the
technical ability to operate in that band,
particularly those aircraft that operate
internationally. Included in this band
are the frequencies 1755–1850 MHz,
which in the United States currently is
allocated on an exclusive basis to the
United States federal government for
fixed and mobile services, including
airborne systems. We therefore propose
requiring airlines (whether U.S.registered or registered by another
administration) operating an Airborne
Access System in the 1755–1850 MHz
frequency band to turn off the Airborne
Access System or otherwise disengage
transmission in this band prior to
reaching U.S. airspace. We also invite
commenters to provide technical studies
demonstrating what is sufficient to
prevent harmful interference in the
1755–1850 MHz band. We seek
comment on this proposal, including
potential in-flight enforcement issues.
We also note that the Commission has
proposed to make the 1755–1780 MHz
band available for shared federal and
non-federal use. We seek comment on
what, if any, impact such shared
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
operations could have on the proposals
set forth in this NPRM. In addition, we
note that other bands are subject to
operational limitations that could affect
their availability for airborne
commercial mobile operations. We seek
comment on what, if any, impact such
operational limitations could have on
the proposals set forth in this NPRM.
Given our proposal to prohibit
operations on Federal frequencies, we
invite comment as to whether it would
be technologically feasible for systems
designed for international flights to
switch to authorized non-federal
frequency bands in United States
airspace.
4. Applicability to Non-U.S.-Registered
Aircraft Operating in U.S. Airspace
63. Non-U.S.-registered aircraft with
Airborne Access Systems currently turn
off airborne mobile communications
services before entering U.S. airspace.
We seek comment on whether it is in
the public interest to allow aircraft
authorized by a foreign government to
provide mobile communications
services to continue operating its
Airborne Access System within U.S.
airspace and thereby provide
uninterrupted airborne mobile
communications services to its
passengers.
64. We also seek comment on the
appropriate regulatory framework for
the operation of Airborne Access
Systems on non-U.S.-registered aircraft
within U.S. territory. The ability of a
foreign entity to use spectrum or operate
radio equipment within the United
States stems from rights derived from
international agreements, or from direct
authorization from the United States.
Accordingly, in determining how such
use may be permitted, we must take
several factors into consideration,
including the applicability of
international agreements to which we
are a party.
65. The United States is a signatory to
the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (Chicago Convention), which
provides a mechanism for recognizing
foreign licenses. Under the Chicago
Convention, aircraft registered to a
member country may use radio
transmitter equipment over another
country’s territory provided that the
transmitter is licensed by the country
that registered the aircraft and that said
use is in compliance with the
regulations of the country over which
the aircraft is flying. The Chicago
Convention also provides that licenses
issued by member nations must be equal
to or above the minimum standards
adopted by the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO). As we
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
interpret the Chicago Convention,
foreign-registered aircraft do not
currently have authority to operate an
Airborne Access System within U.S.
airspace as such use is not currently
permitted under the Commission’s
rules.
66. Further, to the extent the
Commission adopts rules to permit
mobile communications services on
aircraft, a non-U.S.-registered carrier
may operate an Airborne Access System
that complies with such rules.
Moreover, we are not aware that ICAO
has adopted or intends to adopt
standards and recommended practices
for the operation of Airborne Access
System pursuant to the Chicago
Convention. We therefore tentatively
conclude that the Chicago Convention is
not an independent source of
authorization for foreign airlines to
operate an Airborne Access System
within U.S. airspace. It also does not
appear that other agreements offer a
means by which the United States may
recognize the authority of a foreignregistered aircraft to operate an Airborne
Access System. We also are not aware
of any bilateral agreements between the
United States and any other
administrations that would serve as a
mechanism for allowing foreignregistered aircraft to operate an Airborne
Access System over U.S. airspace.
67. In light of these considerations,
we tentatively conclude that current
agreements do not provide non-U.S.registered carriers independent
authorization to operate Airborne
Access Systems in U.S. airspace. We
seek comment on these tentative
conclusions. Commenters believing
otherwise should identify the applicable
agreement(s) and legal authority under
which we may permit such operation.
We also request comment on any other
mechanisms that might allow for
recognition of an Airborne Access
System authorization issued by another
administration.
68. Assuming that there are no
international agreements permitting
foreign-registered aircraft to operate an
Airborne Access System within U.S.
airspace, we seek comment as to
whether the Commission should
directly authorize such use on the same
terms that would apply to Airborne
Access System operation onboard
domestic aircraft. Specifically, operators
of foreign-registered aircraft would be
permitted to apply for an aircraft station
license under part 87 for the purpose of
providing access to airborne mobile
communications services to passengers
while within U.S. airspace. For foreignregistered aircraft, the part 87 aircraft
station license would authorize
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
Airborne Access System operation only
and would not cover other aircraft
station functions. We seek comment on
this proposal, as well as on any
alternative licensing approaches.
Commenters should discuss the costs
and benefits of this or any alternative
proposal. We note that applications for
such authorizations would be subject to
the foreign ownership provisions of
sections 310(a) and (b) of the Act, just
as they apply to operators of U.S.registered aircraft.
D. Other Issues
1. Service Below 3,048 Meters (10,000
Feet)
69. As noted previously, the proposed
3,048 meter (10,000 feet) altitude floor
for airborne mobile communications
services would minimize the risk of
harmful interference with terrestrial
networks and is consistent with FAA
regulations and international practices.
However, there may be circumstances
where mobile communications services
on aircraft operating below 3,048 meters
(10,000 feet) would be in the public
interest and would not cause harmful
interference. We seek comment as to
whether there are circumstances in
which mobile communications services
on aircraft would not raise the concerns
set forth above (e.g., in low flying, slow
moving aircraft) and whether the 3,048
meter (10,000 feet) altitude limit and/or
Airborne Access System requirement
would be necessary in such cases. For
instance, certain providers of critical
public services routinely operate aircraft
at altitudes below 3,048 meters (10,000
feet) and may have a need for mobile
communications services at these
altitudes. These operators include
medical evacuation, police departments,
news organizations, and public safety
entities. Could these use cases be
accommodated within the proposed
rules? What would the appropriate
regulatory and technical parameters be
for the use of mobile communications
services on aircraft by these and other,
similarly situated entities?
70. While we propose to authorize
service only above 3,048 meters (10,000
feet) for all commercial aircraft, we also
seek comment generally on the
technical viability, safety, and legality of
mobile communications services on
aircraft below 3,048 meters (10,000 feet)
(or other reasonable altitude limit
adopted in this proceeding) for specific
purposes on certain types of aircraft.
Would operations below 3,048 meters
(10,000 feet) be technically viable?
Should Airborne Access Systems be
permitted to remain in operation at
altitudes below 3,048 meters (10,000
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2625
feet)? Would such low altitude
operations help to mitigate the potential
for harmful interference from mobile
devices into terrestrial mobile networks?
If allowed, would such operations
require the permission of terrestrial
CMRS licensees? We emphasize that
nothing in this proposal should be read
to contradict the FAA’s authority to
determine the proper conditions for
operation of PEDs on aircraft.
2. Voice Service Onboard Aircraft
71. In response to the 2004 Airborne
Mobile NPRM, commenters raised
concerns regarding the use of voice
services on airborne aircraft. We note
that airborne voice service, e.g., 800
MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service, has been available on many
airlines for years, although we
understand that voice service has been
little-used. At the time of the Airborne
Mobile NPRM proceeding, commercial
wireless was primarily a voice service.
Today, commercial mobile services are
used much more heavily for data
services and Internet access. We
appreciate that some people and
organizations may continue to have
concerns about permitting voice
services on aircraft. We also note that
international airlines offering airborne
mobile voice and data services have not
experienced significant problems
related to voice. Yet, consistent with our
review of our technical rules and
commitment to technological neutrality,
our proposal would create an avenue
through which airlines may choose to
offer consumers an additional way to
access mobile broadband services while
in flight.
72. Nothing in this proposal would
require or ensure the provision of voice
service on airplanes. Individual airlines
would determine whether this option
would, in fact, be available to their
passengers. The airlines themselves
would be free to choose and manage the
types of in-flight data and voice services
they provide, subject to applicable FAA
and DoT rules or guidelines with
respect to safety and etiquette. These
considerations notwithstanding,
however, we seek comment on whether
it is appropriate for the Commission to
take concerns regarding the use of voice
service into account in this proceeding.
Specifically, we seek comment on the
operational impacts that may stem from
the provision of voice service, and
whether the Commission has any role in
addressing such effects. We also
recognize that the provision of wireless
services, including, but not limited to,
voice onboard aircraft may require
consumer education to ensure that
consumers are aware of what FCC rules
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2626
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
do and do not permit. We seek comment
on the ways that the Commission can
help consumers understand our current
rules and any rules that the Commission
may ultimately adopt in this
proceeding.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Agreements With Canada and Mexico
73. We conclude that any Airborne
Access System rules we adopt in this
proceeding would limit such operations
to U.S. airspace and would require such
operations to comply with current and
future international agreements with
Mexico and Canada. Until such time as
any agreements between the United
States, Mexico and/or Canada can be
agreed to for the proposed airborne
mobile communications service, any
operations conducted pursuant to rules
adopted in this proceeding must not
cause harmful interference across the
border, and must operate consistent
with the terms of the international
agreements currently in force. We also
note that it may be necessary to modify
any rules adopted in this proceeding to
codify future agreements with Canada
and Mexico regarding the aeronautical
use of these bands. We seek comment
on these conclusions.
4. Law Enforcement and Public Safety
74. While this NPRM focuses
primarily on the technical parameters
and licensing mechanisms by which we
may allow airlines to offer mobile
wireless services on aircraft, we
recognize that our proposals may also
raise public safety, law enforcement and
national security concerns. We note that
wireless service providers are currently
obligated to provide assistance to law
enforcement agencies with respect to
the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA). Specifically,
Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 in
order to preserve the ability of law
enforcement agencies to conduct
electronic surveillance by requiring that
telecommunications carriers and
manufacturers of telecommunications
equipment modify and design their
equipment, facilities, and services to
ensure that they have necessary
surveillance capabilities. In addition to
telecommunications carriers identified
in CALEA and its legislative history, the
Commission has concluded that
facilities-based broadband Internet
access providers and providers of
interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) service would also be
deemed to be ‘‘telecommunications
carriers’’ for purposes of applying
CALEA. Accordingly, we propose that
any mobile wireless services offered by
Airborne Access System operators
would be subject to the provisions of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
CALEA, regardless of whether such
offerings are voice or data services.
75. Beyond satisfying CALEA
obligations, satellite providers, ESAA
operators, as well as 800 MHz AirGround licensees address specific
public safety, law enforcement, and
national security concerns through
individual negotiations with law
enforcement agencies. We anticipate
that an entity seeking to provide mobile
wireless services through the use of an
Airborne Access System would follow
the established process and work
diligently with law enforcement
agencies to address any public safety,
law enforcement, and national security
concerns through individual
negotiations and agreements.
76. We seek comment on whether
there are additional measures that the
Commission should take to address inflight safety and security concerns
beyond CALEA obligations and
individual agreements among service
providers and law enforcement
agencies. While we again emphasize
that issues of onboard security and
safety of flight are matters primarily
reserved for the FAA, DoT, and the
airlines, there may be measures within
our regulatory purview that can be taken
to further the Commission’s interests in
preserving and promoting public safety
and homeland security. We therefore
request that commenters identify
specific public safety, law enforcement
and national security-related concerns
that may stem from the Commission’s
proposals, and the steps that the
Commission could take to address those
concerns.
III. Ex Parte Rules
77. The proceeding this NPRM
initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
78. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
NPRM. Written comments are requested
on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
79. By this NPRM, we propose to
allow airlines (or more specifically,
station licensees) to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft
(mobile communications services on
aircraft). Currently, the Commission’s
rules prohibit airborne use of mobile
devices in the 800 MHz cellular band
and restrict use in the 800 MHz SMR
band, while the rules governing other
commercial mobile spectrum bands are
silent. Since a previous Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that sought to
address these restrictions was
terminated in 2007, more than forty
jurisdictions, including the European
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Union and Australia, have authorized
the use of mobile communications
services on aircraft. To the best of our
knowledge, there have been no reports
of these services causing any harmful
interference to terrestrial networks. We
believe that it is in the public interest
to bring the benefits of mobile
communications services on aircraft to
domestic consumers and that the
proposals set forth in this NPRM further
our recent efforts to expand access to
airborne broadband services.
80. We propose to allow mobile
communications services on aircraft by:
(1) Removing existing restrictions on
airborne use of mobile devices in the
800 MHz cellular and 800 MHz SMR
bands; (2) harmonizing regulations
governing the operation of mobile
devices on airborne aircraft across all
commercial mobile spectrum bands; and
(3) implementing a comprehensive
regulatory framework to promote
airborne mobile data use using all
commercial mobile spectrum bands.
81. Under our proposal, we would
add the authority to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft
across all commercial mobile spectrum
bands (as categorized below) to the
existing part 87 aircraft station licenses
of domestic airlines. Alternatively, the
NPRM seeks comment on whether we
should permit inflight mobile wireless
service using an alternative
authorization method. Alternatives
could include: (1) Non-exclusive
licenses by which applicants, an airline
or other entity, could file to provide
airborne wireless services; (2) terrestrial
license leases whereby an airline could
provide service through lease
agreements with mobile wireless service
licensees; (3) auctioned ‘‘sky licenses’’
covering nationwide or geographic
markets that would be assigned
pursuant to competitive bidding, or; (4)
unlicensed use or license-by-rule
whereby eligible entities would be
permitted to operate without the
Commission issuing individual licenses.
82. We propose to allow mobile
communications services on aircraft
only if managed by an Airborne Access
System (Airborne Access System),
which would control the emissions of
onboard portable electronic devices by
requiring them to remain at or near their
lowest transmitting power level and
prevent such devices from causing
harmful interference to terrestrial
networks. We also propose to limit
mobile communications services on
aircraft to aircraft travelling at altitudes
above 3,048 meters (10,000 feet).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
B. Legal Basis
83. This action is taken under sections
1, 4(i), 11, and 303(r) and (y), 308, 309,
and 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
161, 303(r), (y), 308, 309, and 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
84. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted herein.
The RFA generally defines the term
‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A ‘‘small business concern’’ is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
85. In addition, we have adopted
criteria for defining three groups of
small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits. We
have defined a small business as an
entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40
million for the preceding three years. A
very small business is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than
$15 million for the preceding three
years. The SBA has approved these
small size standards.
86. In the following paragraphs, we
further describe and estimate the
number and type of small entities that
may be affected by the proposals set
forth in the NPRM. If our proposals are
adopted, small airlines that choose to
implement mobile communications
services on aircraft could be required to
modify their existing part 87 licenses
and comply with new regulatory
requirements, including as to the mobile
communications services on aircraft
equipment. Such compliance would
involve, to varying degrees, the services
described below. Under our proposals,
an airline would be permitted to
negotiate commercial agreements with
the entities described in the following.
It is possible that an airline could
negotiate agreements affecting all
communications services listed, or an
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2627
airline may reach agreements involving
only certain categories.
87. The NPRM also request comment
on whether we should permit inflight
mobile wireless services through
alternative licensing methodologies. In
such cases, any eligible entity (airlines
or others) would be permitted to
provide mobile wireless services
onboard aircraft. In such cases, the
authorized parties could be any of the
service providers listed below. In
addition, any device manufacturers that
choose to manufacture devices for
mobile communications services on
aircraft use will have to ensure that such
devices comply with any rules adopted
in this proceeding.
88. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The proposals set forth in
the NPRM, may, over time, affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at
present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive,
statutory small entity size standards that
encompass entities that could be
directly affected by the proposals under
consideration. As of 2009, small
businesses represented 99.9% of the
27.5 million businesses in the United
States, according to the SBA.
Additionally, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with
a population of less than fifty
thousand.’’ Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,761 entities may
qualify as ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
89. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007,
the SBA has recognized wireless firms
within this new, broad, economic
census category. Prior to that time, such
firms were within the now-superseded
categories of Paging and Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.
Under the present and prior categories,
the SBA has deemed a wireless business
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category census
data 2007 show that there were 11,163
establishments that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 10,791
establishments had employment of 999
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2628
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
or fewer employees and 372 had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this category and the
associated small business size standard,
the Commission estimates that the
majority of wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite) are small
entities that may be affected by our
proposed action
90. Similarly, according to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision
of wireless telephony, including cellular
service, Personal Communications
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these
firms can be considered small. Thus,
using available data, we estimate that
the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.
91. Wireless Telephony. Wireless
telephony includes cellular, personal
communications services, and
specialized mobile radio telephony
carriers. As noted, the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Trends in Telephone
Service data, 413 carriers reported that
they were engaged in wireless
telephony. Of these, an estimated 261
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152
have more than 1,500 employees.
Therefore, more than half of these
entities can be considered small.
92. Cellular Licenses. The Cellular
Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service is in
the 824–849 and 869–894 MHz
spectrum range. The most common use
of cellular spectrum is mobile voice and
data services, including cell phone, text
messaging, and Internet.
93. The Commission adopted initial
rules governing allocation of spectrum
for commercial Cellular service,
including the establishment of two
channel blocks (Blocks A and B), in
1981. To issue cellular licenses, the FCC
divided the U.S. into 734 geographic
markets called Cellular Market Areas
(CMAs) and divided the 40 megahertz of
spectrum into two, 20 megahertz
amounts referred to as channel blocks;
channel block A and channel block B.
A single license for the A block and the
B block were made available in each
market. The B block of spectrum was
awarded to a local wireline carrier that
provided landline telephone service in
the CMA. The A block was awarded to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
non-wireline carriers. The wireline/nonwireline distinction for cellular licenses
no longer exists.
94. The licensee of the initial license
was provided a five-year period to
expand coverage within the CMA. The
area timely built out during that fiveyear period became the licensee’s initial
Cellular Geographic Service Area
(CGSA), while any area not built out by
the five-year mark was automatically
relinquished for re-licensing on a siteby-site basis by the Commission.
95. The Commission established a two
phase licensing approach for areas that
reverted back to the FCC. Phase I was
a one-time process that started as soon
as the five-year period ended and
allowed parties to file an application to
operate a new cellular system or expand
an existing cellular system. Phase I
licensing is no longer available. Phase II
is an on-going process that allows
parties to apply for unserved areas after
Phase I ended. At this point, all cellular
licensing is in Phase II. On June 4, 2002,
the Commission completed the auction
of three cellular Rural Service Area
licenses. Three winning bidders won a
total of 3 licenses in this auction. On
June 17, 2008, the Commission
completed the closed auction of one
unserved service area. The auction
concluded with one provisionally
winning bid for the unserved area
totaling $25,002. No bidders in either
auction received small business bidding
credits.
96. Broadband Personal
Communications Service. The
broadband personal communications
services (PCS) spectrum is divided into
six frequency blocks designated A
through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The
Commission initially defined a ‘‘small
business’’ for C- and F-Block licenses as
an entity that has average gross revenues
of $40 million or less in the three
previous years. For Block F licenses, an
additional small business size standard
for ‘‘very small business’’ was added
and is defined as an entity that, together
with its affiliates, has average gross
revenues of not more than $15 million
for the preceding three years. These
small business size standards, in the
context of broadband PCS auctions,
have been approved by the SBA. No
small businesses within the SBAapproved small business size standards
bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders
that claimed small business status in the
first two C Block auctions. A total of 93
bidders that claimed ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘very
small’’ business status won licenses in
the first auction of the D, E, and F
Blocks. In 1999, the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
completed a subsequent auction of C, D,
E, and F Block licenses. Of the 57
winning bidders in that auction, 48
claimed small business status and won
277 licenses.
97. In 2001, the Commission
completed the auction of 422 C and F
Block Broadband PCS licenses (Auction
35). Of the 35 winning bidders in that
auction, 29 claimed small or very small
businesses status. Subsequent events
concerning that Auction, including
judicial and agency determinations,
resulted in only a portion of those C and
F Block licenses being available for
grant. The Commission completed an
auction of 188 C Block licenses and 21
F Block licenses in 2005. Of the 24
winning bidders in that auction, 16
claimed small business status and won
156 licenses. In 2007, the Commission
completed an auction of licenses in the
A, C, and F Blocks. Of the 12 winning
bidders in that auction, five claimed
small business status and won 18
licenses. Most recently, in 2008, the
Commission completed the auction of C,
D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS
licenses. Of the eight winning bidders
for Broadband PCS licenses in that
auction, six claimed small business
status and won 14 licenses.
98. Advanced Wireless Services. In
2006, the Commission conducted its
first auction of Advanced Wireless
Services licenses in the 1710–1755 MHz
and 2110–2155 MHz bands (AWS–1),
designated as Auction 66. For the AWS–
1 bands, the Commission has defined a
‘‘small business’’ as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $40
million, and a ‘‘very small business’’ as
an entity with average annual gross
revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $15 million. In Auction
66, 31 winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses and
won 142 licenses. Twenty-six of the
winning bidders identified themselves
as small businesses and won 73
licenses. In a subsequent 2008 auction,
the Commission offered 35 AWS–1
licenses. Four winning bidders
identifying themselves as very small
businesses won 17 licenses, and three
winning bidders identifying themselves
as a small business won five AWS–1
licenses.
99. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.
The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of
small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits. The
Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’
as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
$40 million for the preceding three
years. A ‘‘very small business’’ is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, the Lower 700
MHz Service had a third category of
small business status for Metropolitan/
Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses
—‘‘entrepreneur’’—which is defined as
an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3
million for the preceding three years.
The SBA approved these small size
standards.
100. An auction of 740 licenses was
conducted in 2002 (one license in each
of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
in each of the six Economic Area
Groupings (EAGs). Of the 740 licenses
available for auction, 484 licenses were
won by 102 winning bidders. Seventytwo of the winning bidders claimed
small business, very small business, or
entrepreneur status and won a total of
329 licenses. A second auction
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on
June 13, 2003, and included 256
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders
claimed small or very small business
status and won 60 licenses, and nine
winning bidders claimed entrepreneur
status and won 154 licenses. In 2005,
the Commission completed an auction
of 5 licenses in the lower 700 MHz band
(Auction 60). All three winning bidders
claimed small business status.
101. In 2007, the Commission
reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second
Report and Order. An auction of A, B
and E block licenses in the Lower 700
MHz band was held in 2008. Twenty
winning bidders claimed small business
status. Thirty three winning bidders
claimed very small business status.
102. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.
In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules
regarding Upper 700 MHz band
licenses. In 2008, the Commission
conducted Auction 73 in which C and
D block licenses in the Upper 700 MHz
band were available. Three winning
bidders claimed very small business
status.
103. Specialized Mobile Radio. The
Commission adopted small business
size standards for the purpose of
determining eligibility for bidding
credits in auctions of Specialized
Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area
licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
bands. The Commission defined a
‘‘small business’’ as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
revenues not exceeding $15 million for
the preceding three years. The
Commission defined a ‘‘very small
business’’ as an entity that together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues not
exceeding $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA has approved
these small business size standards for
both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR
Service. The first 900 MHz SMR auction
was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders
claiming that they qualified as small
businesses under the $15 million size
standard won 263 licenses in the 900
MHz SMR band. In 2004, the
Commission held a second auction of
900 MHz SMR licenses and three
winning bidders identifying themselves
as very small businesses won 7 licenses.
The auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses
for the upper 200 channels was
conducted in 1997. Ten bidders
claiming that they qualified as small or
very small businesses under the $15
million size standard won 38 licenses
for the upper 200 channels. A second
auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses was
conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA
licenses. One bidder claiming small
business status won five licenses.
104. The auction of the 1,053 800
MHz SMR licenses for the General
Category channels was conducted in
2000. Eleven bidders who won 108
licenses for the General Category
channels in the 800 MHz SMR band
qualified as small or very small
businesses. In an auction completed in
2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area
licenses in the lower 80 channels of the
800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of
the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed
small or very small business status and
won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all
three auctions, 41 winning bidders for
geographic licenses in the 800 MHz
SMR band claimed to be small
businesses.
105. In addition, there are numerous
incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees
and licensees with extended
implementation authorizations in the
800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not
know how many firms provide 800 MHz
or 900 MHz geographic area SMR
pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these
providers have annual revenues not
exceeding $15 million. One firm has
over $15 million in revenues. In
addition, we do not know how many of
these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees. We assume, for purposes of
this analysis, that all of the remaining
existing extended implementation
authorizations are held by small
entities, as that small business size
standard is approved by the SBA.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2629
106. Wireless Communications
Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital
audio broadcasting satellite uses. The
Commission defined ‘‘small business’’
for the wireless communications
services (WCS) auction as an entity with
average gross revenues of $40 million
for each of the three preceding years,
and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity
with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding
years. The SBA approved these
definitions.
107. The Commission conducted an
auction of geographic area licenses in
the WCS service in 1997. In the auction,
seven bidders that qualified as very
small business entities won licenses,
and one bidder that qualified as a small
business entity won a license.
108. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for firms in
this category, which is: All such firms
having 750 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 939
establishments in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 912 had employment of less than
500, and an additional 27 had
employment of 500 or more. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.
109. Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation. Air transportation
entities, specifically airlines, are
implicated only to the extent that the
Commission adopts the proposal to
permit airlines to provide mobile
wireless services. This proposal would
give airlines the choice of whether to
enable mobile communications services
using an Airborne Access System, as
well as the specific services to enable.
All elements of the Airborne Access
Systems and any permissible airborne
mobile devices would be subject to
applicable FAA and DoT rules and
approval procedures.
110. The Census Bureau defines this
category as follows: This U.S. industry
comprises establishments primarily
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2630
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
engaged in providing air transportation
of passengers or passengers and freight
over regular routes and on regular
schedules. Establishments in this
industry operate flights even if partially
loaded. Scheduled air passenger carriers
including commuter, and helicopter
carriers (except scenic and sightseeing)
are included in this industry. The SBA
has developed a size standard for this
industry, which is, all establishments
having 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau
information for 2007, 2,569
establishments operated in that year. Of
that number, 1,742 operated with more
than 1,000 employees. Based on this
data, we estimate that 827, or
approximately 31 percent of these
establishments, are small. However, it
must be understood that since use of the
technology necessary to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft is
permissive rather than compulsory, no
data are available to indicate what
percentage of all such passengercarrying airlines establishments will use
this technology after their part 87
licenses are modified. Accordingly, the
Commission cannot project at this time
what percentage of all such licensees
will be small passenger air
transportation establishments.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
111. Under the Commission’s
proposal, all Airborne Access System
devices must comply with technical and
operational requirements, including:
Measures that may be taken to limit
power include, but are not necessarily
limited to, mobile power restrictions,
aircraft picocell power restrictions,
network control unit power and/or
technology limitations, altitude
restrictions, and methods to prevent an
airborne mobile phone from accessing
the ground-based commercial mobile
networks.
112. While our proposals would
require small airline businesses to
modify their existing part 87 licenses if
they want to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft,
airlines are not required to install and
operate mobile communications
services on aircraft Licensees would be
permitted to contract with third parties
to install equipment for or offer mobile
communications services on aircraft. In
addition, modifying existing aircraft
fleet or station licenses to include
proposed mobile communications
services on aircraft use should not
impose significant administrative
burdens on airlines, and they would
have the opportunity for an additional
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
revenue stream. On balance, this would
constitute a significant benefit for small
business.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
113. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in developing its approach,
which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables
that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule
for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
114. In the NPRM, the Commission
proposes that domestic aircraft
operators that want to offer mobile
communications services on aircraft be
required to file for a modification of
their existing aircraft station or fleet
licenses to include the newly designated
use. Also, terrestrial commercial mobile
providers would have the option of
entering into permissive commercial
contracts with airlines to provide access
to wireless subscriber services.
115. The NPRM specifically solicits
alternative licensing proposals,
especially those that would not incur
significant and undue adverse impacts
on small entities. We also specifically
solicit comment regarding the affect our
proposals may have on small business
entities that may lack the financial and
technical resources necessary to deploy
mobile communications services on
aircraft. We seek comment on factors
that may minimize any undue impacts
on parties, including small and very
small businesses, that may be affected
by our proposals. For example, we
request comment on whether our
proposals have a disproportionate
financial impact on small businesses,
e.g. smaller air carriers as compared to
larger entities, e.g. large airlines. Will
our proposals affect the ability of small
businesses to compete with larger
entities that may more easily afford to
deploy an Airborne Access System? If
so, we request comment on whether
there are factors that could offset such
impact. For example, could a small
business enter into business agreements
with other entities that would make the
provision of mobile communications
services more feasible for such entities?
We seek comment on how to lessen
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
potential burdens on these small
carriers, including any factors or
arrangements that could make the
provision of mobile communications
services more practical for small
entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
116. 14 CFR 91.21, 121.306, 125.204,
and 135.144.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
117. This NPRM seeks comment on
potential new or revised information
collection requirement(s). If the
Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement(s),
the Commission will publish a notice in
the Federal Register inviting the public
to comment on the requirement, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
the Commission seeks specific comment
on how it might ‘‘further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
VI. Ordering Clauses
118. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 4(i), 11, 303(r), 303(y), 308,
309, and 332 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 161, 303(r), 303(y), 308, 309, and
332, this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 27, 87, and 90
Radio.
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 27, and 90
Communications common carriers.
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 87, and 90
Communications equipment.
47 CFR Part 87
Air transportation.
47 CFR Part 24
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 90
Business and industry.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 22, 24, 27, 87, and 90 as follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 22
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309,
and 332.
2. Section 22.925 is revised to read as
follows:
■
§ 22.925
devices
Airborne operation of mobile
specified in § 27.5 may provide any
services for which its frequency bands
are allocated, as set forth in the nonFederal Government column of the
Table of Allocations in § 2.106 of this
chapter (column 5).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Devices using frequencies licensed
under this part are prohibited from
operating onboard airborne aircraft
except as authorized by § 87.205, et seq.
Devices using frequencies licensed
under this subpart are prohibited from
operating onboard airborne aircraft
except as authorized by § 87.205, et seq.
■
PART 24—PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307 (e)
unless otherwise noted.
3. The authority citation for part 24
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303,
309, and 332.
4. Section 24.3 is revised to read as
follows:
■
Subpart F—Aircraft Stations
Sec.
Permissible communications.
PCS licensees may provide any
mobile communications service on their
assigned spectrum. Fixed services may
be provided on a co-primary basis with
mobile operations. Broadcasting as
defined in the Communications Act is
prohibited. Devices using frequencies
licensed under this rule part are
prohibited from operating onboard
airborne aircraft except as authorized by
§ 87.205, et seq.
PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES
5. The authority citation for part 27
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303,
307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, and 1451
unless otherwise noted.
6. Section 27.2 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (f)
to read as follows:
■
§ 27.2
Permissible communications.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Miscellaneous wireless
communications services. Except as
provided in paragraph (b), (d), or (e) of
this section and subject to technical and
other rules contained in this part, a
licensee in the frequency bands
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:09 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
7. The authority citation for part 87
continues to read as follows:
8. Add §§ 87.205 through 87.207 and
the undesignated center heading
‘‘Airborne Mobile Service’’ to Subpart F
to read as follows:
■
§ 24.3
PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES
*
*
*
*
*
Airborne Mobile Service
87.205 Scope of service.
87.206 Frequencies.
87.207 Technical requirements.
§ 87.205
Scope of service.
Aircraft Station Licensees shall be
permitted to provide mobile broadband
service under this rule part subject to
the following conditions:
(a) Mobile broadband services shall be
authorized only within aircraft cabins;
(b) Mobile broadband service shall be
authorized only over the frequencies
designated in § 87.206;
(c) Aircraft station licensees must
utilize an airborne access system that
complies with the technical rules set
forth in § 87.207.
(d) The Airborne Mobile Service shall
be authorized only at altitudes above
3,048 meters (∼10,000) feet. No
transmissions shall be authorized over
designated frequencies below this
altitude.
§ 87.206
Frequencies.
The frequencies 698–757 MHz, 775–
787 MHz, SMR spectrum within the
bands (806–824 MHz, 851–869 MHz,
896–901 MHz, and 935–940 MHz), 824–
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
2631
849 MHz, 869–894 MHz, 1850–1915
MHz, 1930–1995 MHz, 1710–1755 MHz,
2000–2020 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz,
2180–2200 MHz, 2305–2320 MHz, and
2345–2360 MHz are authorized for
airborne in-cabin use consistent with
the requirements and § 87.205, et seq.
§ 87.207
Technical requirements.
Airborne access systems on licensed
aircraft must:
(a) Utilize only frequencies authorized
in § 87.206 for the provision of Airborne
Mobile Service;
(b) Manage all in-cabin transmissions
from mobile devices transmitting on
frequencies listed in § 87.206;
(c) Prevent in-cabin mobile devices
transmitting on frequencies listed in
§ 87.206 from operating at power levels
sufficient to potentially cause harmful
interference to terrestrial mobile
networks;
(d) Ensure that each transmitting
component of the airborne access
system maintains minimal emissions, as
measured outside the aircraft cabin, to
ensure that airborne operations do not
cause harmful interference to terrestrial
mobile networks;
(e) Otherwise comply with technical
rules applicable to terrestrial base
stations operating on the frequencies
listed in § 87.206;
PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE
RADIO SERVICES
9. The authority citation for part 90
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r),
and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, 126 Stat. 156.
10. Section 90.423 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 90.423 Airborne operation of mobile
devices.
Devices using frequencies licensed
under this rule part are prohibited from
operating onboard airborne aircraft
except as authorized by § 87.205, et seq.
[FR Doc. 2013–31203 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2615-2631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31203]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 27, 87, and 90
[WT Docket No. 13-301; FCC 13-157]
Expanding Access to Mobile Wireless Services Onboard Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
proposes to revise outdated rules and adopt consistent new rules
governing mobile communications services aboard airborne aircraft.
These rule changes would give airlines, subject to applicable Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Transportation (DoT)
rules, the choice of whether to enable mobile communications services
using an Airborne Access System and, if so, which specific services to
enable. The proposed rules would also replace an existing patchwork of
regulatory prohibitions on airborne use of mobile services in some, but
not all, of the heavily used mobile wireless bands with a consistent
regulatory framework that explicitly forbids airborne use of mobile
services in those bands unless they are operating on an aircraft
equipped with an Airborne Access System.
DATES: Submit comments on or before February 14, 2014. Submit reply
comments on or before March 17, 2014. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
comments should be submitted March 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 13-301
or FCC 13-157, by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[ssquf] Mail: FCC Headquarters, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC
20554.
[ssquf] In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy
of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A.
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Huetinck of the Mobility
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-7090 or
Amanda.Huetinck@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via the
Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the
[[Page 2616]]
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
This NPRM seeks comment on a potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a
notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the
requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Synopsis
I. Introduction and Background
1. By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to
revise outdated rules and adopt consistent new rules governing mobile
communications services aboard airborne aircraft. These rule changes
would give airlines, subject to applicable Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and Department of Transportation (DoT) rules, the
choice of whether to enable mobile communications services using an
Airborne Access System and, if so, which specific services to enable.
The draft rules would also replace an existing patchwork of regulatory
prohibitions on airborne use of mobile services in some, but not all,
of the heavily used mobile bands with a consistent regulatory framework
that explicitly forbids airborne use of mobile services in those bands
unless they are operating on an aircraft equipped with an Airborne
Access System. If adopted, the rule changes would reduce consumer
confusion, increase protection against harmful interference, improve
administrative efficiency, and facilitate expanded access to broadband
services in flight. Additionally, while many airlines offer in-flight
Wi-Fi broadband services, the proposals in this NPRM would give
airlines the option to allow consumers to access broadband services
when airborne through their existing wireless service providers, just
as they would on the ground. The NPRM does not propose to mandate that
airlines permit any new airborne mobile services. It does, however,
provide a path for interested airlines to authorize increased consumer
access to airborne mobile broadband services across licensed commercial
mobile spectrum bands in a safe, non-interfering manner.
2. In recent years, air carriers have been enhancing their in-
flight communications service offerings to meet the increasing consumer
demand for broadband connectivity on aircraft. One study predicts that
the number of aircraft offering wireless connectivity will reach 4,048
by the end of 2013 (representing 21 percent of the global fleet), and
will rise to 14,000 by 2022 (a 50 percent connectivity penetration in
commercial aircraft). This study also projects that approximately 5,000
of these aircraft will offer both Wi-Fi and cellular options. According
to one survey of adult airline passengers, 69 percent of airline
passengers that brought a portable electronic device (PED)--such as a
tablet or smartphone--onto an aircraft in the past 12 months reported
that they used their devices during flight. The report did not
distinguish between transmitting PEDs and non-transmitting PEDs. Also,
notably, in October 2013, the FAA announced that, after performing
recommended assessments and tests, airlines could safely expand
passenger use of PEDs during all phases of flight.
3. Internationally, more than forty jurisdictions, including the
European Union (EU), Asia, and Australia, have authorized the use of
mobile communications services on aircraft. To the best of our
knowledge, these services have successfully operated without causing
harmful interference to terrestrial commercial wireless networks.
(Throughout the NPRM we refer to networks primarily providing ground-
based network services as ``terrestrial'' networks or licensees. This
colloquial usage is not intended to invoke technical meanings of the
term ``terrestrial'' that may be familiar in other regulatory (e.g.,
FCC or International Telecommunication Union) contexts.) Given the
rapidly expanding demand for mobile broadband services, our recent
efforts to improve consumers' access to broadband services on aircraft,
and the successful deployment of mobile communications services on
aircraft in numerous other countries, we find that it is in the public
interest to bring the benefits of mobile communications services on
aircraft to domestic consumers. Specifically, we propose to:
(1) Remove existing, narrow restrictions on airborne use of mobile
devices in the 800 MHz cellular and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
bands, replacing them with a more comprehensive framework encompassing
access to mobile communications services in all mobile wireless bands;
(2) Harmonize regulations governing the operation of mobile devices
on airborne aircraft across all commercial mobile spectrum bands; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this Notice, ``commercial mobile spectrum
bands'' include: (1) the 800 MHz cellular band (824-849 and 869-894
MHz); (2) SMR spectrum within the bands (806-824 and 851-869 MHz and
896-901 and 935-940 MHz); (3) the Broadband Personal Communications
Service (PCS) band (1850-1915 and 1930-1995 MHz); (4) 700 MHz band
(698-757 and 775-787 MHz); (5) the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)
band (1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz); (6) the Wireless Communications
Service (WCS) band (2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz); and AWS-4 (2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz). We would expect to add other spectrum
bands if and when they are allocated for commercial mobile broadband
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Add the authority to provide mobile communications services on
airborne aircraft across all commercial mobile spectrum bands to
existing part 87 aircraft station licenses;
(4) Allow mobile communications services on airborne aircraft only
if managed by an Airborne Access System certified by the FAA, which
would control the emissions of onboard PEDs by requiring them to remain
at or near their lowest transmitting power level;
(5) Limit authorization for mobile communications services to
aircraft travelling at altitudes of more than 3,048 meters
(approximately 10,000 feet) above the ground;
(6) We also seek comment on alternative authorization frameworks,
the potential impact of these proposals on public safety and national
security, and issues related to the use of voice services onboard
aircraft.
4. Consistent with our continued efforts to increase consumer
access to broadband and the FAA's recent actions, this proposal would
provide airlines with the technological tools to
[[Page 2617]]
offer additional in-cabin communications services to their passengers
at their discretion. Our proposal is focused on data services, but it
is technology-neutral; we do not propose to limit the use of mobile
communications services on airborne aircraft to non-voice applications.
Deployment of such services, including etiquette and other rules, would
be at the discretion of individual airlines, within the context of any
rules or guidelines established by the FAA or DoT.
A. FCC Regulations Limiting Airborne Mobile Use
5. Commission rules governing the use of airborne mobile devices
vary significantly among services. Specifically, airborne use of the
800 MHz cellular band is prohibited and airborne use of the 800 MHz SMR
band is prohibited on aircraft that typically fly at altitudes over one
mile. There are no such restrictions on airborne use of the AWS, PCS,
WCS, 700 MHz, or AWS-4 bands. As noted above resolving these
inconsistencies is one of the primary goals of this proceeding.
6. Part 22 of the Commission's rules prohibits the airborne use of
800 MHz cellular telephones, including the use of such phones on
commercial and private aircraft. This prohibition was adopted in 1991
to guard against the threat of harmful interference from airborne use
of cellular phones to terrestrial cellular networks. The Commission's
prohibition was not to ensure interference-free operation of avionics
equipment. When the prohibition was adopted, the Commission noted that
a cellular telephone used onboard an airborne aircraft would have
greater range than a land-based handset, and its signal would be
received by multiple terrestrial cell sites in a given market, causing
harmful interference. Moreover, the Commission found that because a
cellular telephone can transmit on all assigned 800 MHz cellular
frequencies, a single handset could interfere with cellular systems in
multiple cellular market areas simultaneously. Thus, the Commission
concluded that ``the need for noninterference in all cellular
transmissions outweighs the benefits that would be realized by allowing
the public to use cellular service in airborne aircraft.''
7. Similarly, the part 90 rules restrict the use of SMR handsets
while airborne in certain circumstances. The altitude restriction in
Sec. 90.423 prohibits operations on aircraft that are regularly flown
at altitudes at one mile or above and, consequently, essentially bans
part 90 land mobile radio use on commercial airline flights. These
rules were enacted to prevent harmful interference with land-based
operations by the use of land mobile frequencies aboard high-flying
aircraft, especially aircraft operated by scheduled passenger airlines.
The rules governing all other commercial mobile spectrum bands are
silent with regard to airborne operations.
B. 2004 Airborne Mobile NPRM
8. On December 15, 2004, the Commission adopted the Airborne Mobile
NPRM, in which it proposed to relax or replace the parts 22 and 90
restrictions on airborne use of cellular mobile handsets. The Airborne
Mobile NPRM also included several proposals to facilitate the use of
wireless devices onboard airborne aircraft, including those used for
broadband applications. Overall, the proposals were intended to
minimize the potential for harmful interference to terrestrial systems
while providing maximum flexibility to wireless telecommunications
carriers seeking to address consumer demand for air-ground
connectivity.
9. Notably, the Airborne Mobile NPRM proposed to require onboard
use of picocells to prevent harmful interference to terrestrial mobile
networks. Under this proposal, airborne picocells would have been used
to manage the power levels of mobile handsets onboard aircraft to
ensure that they operated at or near their minimum power levels. The
Airborne Mobile NPRM also sought comment on whether this proposal
should be applied to only the 800 MHz cellular spectrum covered by the
current part 22 rule, or whether the picocell requirement should be
expanded to include handsets and devices operating on spectrum bands
under parts 24, 27, or 90.
10. The Commission received more than 8,000 submissions in the
docket. However, few of the commenters provided requested technical
analyses. Citing the insufficiency of the technical record and finding
that it would be premature to decide the issues presented in the
Airborne Mobile NPRM without additional information, the Commission
terminated the proceeding on March 28, 2007. The Commission, however,
left open the possibility of revisiting the issues raised in this
proceeding, should new technical information become available.
C. International Developments
11. Since the Commission issued the Airborne Mobile Termination
Order in 2007, numerous foreign communications administrations have
issued regulations that have successfully allowed the non-interfering
use of mobile communications services on airborne aircraft utilizing
Airborne Access Systems.
12. Most notably, in 2008, the European Commission (EC) mandated
that EU member countries allocate the 1800 MHz band, which utilizes
Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) technology, above 3,000
meters for mobile communications onboard aircraft (MCA). The EC issued
its Decision following a Report and a Decision from the Electronic
Communications Committee (ECC) of the EU's European Conference of
Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). CEPT MCA Report
16 found that operating an Airborne Access System-based mobile
communications system above 3,000 meters above ground level prevents
harmful interference to ground-based mobile networks (in all studied
bands in which the onboard mobile terminals would be capable of
transmitting).
13. Pursuant to the EC Decision, the communications administrations
of all twenty-seven EU member states subsequently created licensing
mechanisms for airborne mobile services in their individual
jurisdictions. On November 14, 2013, the EC issued a new decision
modifying the existing EC Decision in order to allow for additional
frequency ranges and technologies, such as UMTS and LTE, to be used in
aircraft. Prior to this Decision, CEPT issued a Report on the technical
aspects of adding these new frequencies and technologies.
14. Outside of the United States, two third-party providers, OnAir
and AeroMobile Communications Ltd. (AeroMobile), currently offer mobile
communications services on airborne aircraft. OnAir provides such
third-party services to airlines including British Airways, Emirates,
and Royal Jordanian, while AeroMobile provides such third-party
services to airlines including Emirates, SAS, and Virgin Atlantic.
According to OnAir, approximately eighty countries across Europe, the
Middle East, North Africa, Asia Pacific, North America, and Latin
America have authorized the use of its service. As of May 2012, at
least one foreign air carrier, Virgin Atlantic, has installed and is
operating a system to provide mobile communications services on some
aircraft on transatlantic flights from the United Kingdom to the United
States.
15. We are not aware of any reported cases of harmful interference
to terrestrial systems stemming from the use of Airborne Access Systems
since airlines began offering mobile communications services on
airborne
[[Page 2618]]
aircraft. In response to an FAA inquiry regarding the use of PEDs
during flight, Panasonic stated that since deployment of the eXPhone
system--a system for providing mobile communications services on
aircraft--there has been no harmful interference to aircraft systems or
terrestrial networks, nor have there been any system failures. In
comments filed by AeroMobile in the same proceeding, AeroMobile stated
that it has operated its Airborne Access Systems since 2008 without any
reported instances of harmful interference to avionics or other
aircraft systems, or to terrestrial mobile networks.
D. Current FCC Authorization of Airborne Broadband Access
16. The Commission first paved the way for in-flight voice and data
services in 1990 when it allocated four megahertz of spectrum for
commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. This led to the
deployment of service offered via seat-back phones in many commercial
aircraft. Additionally, in 1998, the Commission granted to AirCell,
Inc. (AirCell) a waiver of Sec. 22.925's airborne cellular prohibition
to allow AirCell to use cellular frequencies for in-flight
communication using specially designed equipment. In 2005, the
Commission reconfigured the 800 MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
to facilitate the provision of broadband service to passengers aboard
aircraft. After that, companies began to offer Wi-Fi using unlicensed
spectrum on aircraft along with an air-to-ground link.
17. In addition to the 800 MHz Air-Ground band, satellite spectrum
also has been used as an air-to-ground link. The L-band Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) has been used to provide data service to and
from aircraft since the 1990s. Beginning in 2001, the Commission
authorized, on an ad hoc basis, the use of earth stations aboard
aircraft (ESAA) communicating with Ku-band geosynchronous orbit (GSO)
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) space stations to provide connectivity to
airborne aircraft. In December 2012, the Commission adopted service and
technical rules for ESAA operations to formalize ESAA as a means of
providing in-flight broadband services to passengers and flight crews
aboard commercial airliners and private aircraft (in conjunction with
in-cabin Wi-Fi).
18. The Commission recently has taken further action to expand
access to broadband services onboard aircraft and improve the quality
of services offered. Notably, on March 29, 2013, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) granted Gogo's request of a waiver of
Sec. 22.853 of the Commission's rules to allow the assignment of one
megahertz of LiveTV Inc.'s licensed nationwide 800 MHz Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service license to Gogo. Gogo now has access to all four
megahertz of nationwide 800 MHz Air-Ground spectrum, which Gogo asserts
is necessary to provide the full array of high-speed wireless
communications services that consumers expect.
19. The Commission also has released a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that proposes to establish a new air-ground mobile broadband
service in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band. The new service will operate on a
secondary, non-interference basis with FSS Earth-to-space
communications. If the rules proposed in that proceeding are adopted,
the new service would significantly increase the capacity available to
aircraft for broadband backhaul.
E. Other Federal Government Actions
20. In January 2013, the FAA Administrator established the PED
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in order to provide a forum for the
U.S. aviation community and PED manufacturers to review comments
received from the FAA's Notice of Policy/Request for Comments regarding
PED policy and guidance. The ARC was tasked to make recommendations to
further clarify and provide guidance on allowing additional passenger
PED usage without compromising the continued safe operation of the
aircraft. The ARC transmitted its report to the FAA Administrator on
September 30, 2013, and the FAA released the report publicly on October
31, 2013.
21. The ARC concluded that most commercial airplanes can tolerate
radio interference signals from PEDs. However, PEDs with cellular
capabilities must disable those capabilities during flight. The ARC
recommended that, subject to this condition, PEDs be permitted to
operate ``gate-to-gate'' provided that the airline operators and
aircraft manufacturers certify their aircraft to demonstrate
``tolerance'' of emissions from PEDs. While cell phones were excluded
from the scope of the ARC Report, the ARC did recommend that the FAA
consult with the Commission to review our current rules. On October 31,
2013, the FAA announced that, based on the ARC Report, it had
determined that airlines can safely expand passenger use of PEDs during
all phases of flight and provided airlines with implementation
guidelines.
II. Discussion
22. In the six years since the Commission issued the Airborne
Mobile Termination Order, the mobile communications landscape has
undergone a series of dramatic changes. Global mobile data traffic
increased by 70 percent from 2011 to 2012 and, driven by widespread
adoption of smartphones, tablets, and other high data use devices, it
is projected to increase thirteen-fold by 2017. Consumers are ever more
dependent on reliable high speed connectivity for these devices for
personal communications, business, and entertainment. Moreover, as
noted, numerous international administrations have adopted rules for
the safe, non-interfering use of mobile services on airborne aircraft
utilizing Airborne Access Systems. The successful widespread
international adoption of these systems demonstrates the technical
viability of mobile communications services on airborne aircraft today.
23. In light of the increasing demand for mobile communications
services on airborne aircraft and widespread confirmation of its
technical viability, we propose to revise our rules to enable domestic
and international travelers to access mobile services onboard aircraft
flying in U.S. airspace. To that end, we propose to: (1) Remove
existing Commission restrictions on airborne use of mobile devices in
the 800 MHz cellular and 800 MHz SMR bands; (2) harmonize regulations
governing the operation of mobile devices on airborne aircraft across
all commercial mobile spectrum bands; and (3) implement a comprehensive
licensing and regulatory framework to facilitate access to mobile
communications services on aircraft. These proposals are consistent
with our longstanding commitment to facilitate universal broadband
access, promote investment and innovation, and encourage efficient,
flexible use of spectrum. We seek comment on these proposals.
24. The proposals in this NPRM would also require airlines to
install Airborne Access Systems if they choose to provide mobile
communications services on airborne aircraft. As described below, the
Airborne Access System incorporates hardware and software to enable the
provision of service and to manage services onboard the aircraft. In
practice, the system would connect wireless devices on the aircraft
operating on licensed wireless frequencies to a terrestrial network via
satellite or air-ground links. While business models may vary, under
one
[[Page 2619]]
model, passengers on a flight with an Airborne Access System would be
able to access the wireless service to which they subscribe when above
3,048 meters (10,000 feet) through the Airborne Access System, and
would be billed for the service directly by their service provider.
25. In this NPRM, we also seek comment on the alternative licensing
and regulatory frameworks for the provision of mobile communications
services on airborne aircraft, the potential impact of these proposals
on public safety and national security, and any potential operational
issues related to the use of mobile services, including voice, onboard
aircraft. We are committed to working closely with other federal
agencies that have expertise and may have more appropriate jurisdiction
over some of these operational areas.
26. Throughout the NPRM, where we seek comment on the costs and
benefits of a proposal, we ask that commenters take into account costs
and benefits that result from the implementation of the particular
rules that could be adopted, including any proposed requirement or
potential alternative requirement. Further, to the extent possible,
commenters should provide specific data and information, such as actual
or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit
addressed, including a description of how the data or information was
calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other
evidentiary support.
A. Changes to Current Rules Restricting Airborne Mobile Broadband Use
27. As an initial matter, we propose to remove or modify the
current restrictions on airborne mobile operations in parts 22 and 90
of the Commission's rules. We propose to replace these restrictions
with references to a revised authorization regime under part 87 of the
Commission's rules that would allow aircraft station licensees to
provide mobile communications services using an Airborne Access System.
We seek comment on whether, in light of the proposals set forth herein
and recent technological advances, these restrictions remain necessary
to prevent harmful interference to terrestrial mobile networks.
28. We also propose to add cross references to the new part 87
airborne mobile service authorization to parts 22, 24, 27, and 90 as
set forth in this NPRM. (This proceeding does not address paging
services authorized under part 22 of the Commission's rules. This NPRM
is primarily concerned with facilitating the deployment of airborne
mobile broadband services and, as such, paging services are beyond the
scope of this proposal.) We propose to make the rules governing
airborne mobile service consistent across all commercial mobile
spectrum bands, thereby reducing confusion, improving administrative
efficiency, and promoting Airborne Access System measures that will
permit the provision of mobile communications services on aircraft
across all commercial mobile spectrum bands. We seek comment on these
proposals. Parties that oppose the removal of the extant bans or the
harmonization of airborne mobile access rules should provide detailed
technical and legal analyses to support their positions.
B. Airborne Access Systems
1. Potential Harmful Interference From Uncontrolled Airborne Mobile
Devices
29. Mobile devices typically connect to a wireless network through
the nearest cell site that can serve the device. As the distance
between the devices and cell sites increases, signals are attenuated by
terrain and obstacles such as buildings, and blocked by the curvature
of the earth. However, an uncontrolled wireless device on an airborne
aircraft could potentially cause co-channel interference at multiple
cell sites. This is because, even though the airborne wireless signal
becomes weaker with increasing height above the ground, unlike the
terrestrial case, it is not attenuated by terrain and obstacles, and it
is not affected by the curvature of the earth. Thus, the signal from an
airborne handset with an unobstructed line of sight may remain
sufficiently strong as the device attempts to access multiple
terrestrial sites, causing harmful interference or other undesirable
effects to terrestrial systems. We concur with the conclusions in the
CEPT MCA Reports that interactions between mobile terminals onboard
aircraft and terrestrial mobile networks are possible unless managed
properly. Unmanaged airborne mobile devices will attempt to connect and
in some cases will succeed in temporarily connecting to a terrestrial
system, causing harmful interference and disruption to the system it is
connected to and to surrounding systems.
2. Benefits of Airborne Access Systems
30. As set forth above, the current parts 22 and 90 prohibitions on
mobile communications services on aircraft were designed to guard
against the threat of harmful interference from airborne use of mobile
devices to terrestrial wireless networks. Airborne Access Systems are
used to minimize the potential for airborne wireless devices
interfering with terrestrial networks. The most common Airborne Access
System in use internationally today consists of an airborne picocell
and a network control unit (NCU). In effect, an airborne picocell is a
low power base station transceiver installed in the aircraft for the
purpose of communicating with (and controlling the operations of)
mobile handsets or other transmitting electronic devices onboard an
aircraft. The picocell controls the power levels of all transmitting
mobile broadband devices operating onboard aircraft, keeping them at or
near their minimum output power. A picocell is analogous to an in-
building distributed antenna system (like those used in large
buildings, malls, etc.) for use in the aircraft. The signal travels
from the handset to the picocell, which then relays the call to the
ground via a separate air-ground link, e.g., via a satellite band or
the 800 MHz Air-Ground band, after which it can be transferred to the
terrestrial network. In addition, the NCU raises the noise floor within
the cabin to prevent devices from attempting to communicate with
terrestrial networks. Under the rules proposed below, terrestrial
service providers and aircraft station licensees would be permitted to
negotiate commercial agreements to facilitate access to terrestrial
networks. We note that for the Airborne Access Systems to effectively
prevent cell phones that have the capability to operate outside the
network from attempting to communicate with terrestrial networks and
prevent potential interference to avionics, the noise floor likely
would have to be raised onboard aircraft in all commercial mobile
spectrum bands. We seek comment on whether airline passengers would be
capable of accessing broadband services onboard aircraft over
commercial mobile spectrum bands absent an agreement between their
terrestrial mobile service provider and the aircraft station licensee.
31. Used in this manner, Airborne Access Systems appear to be an
effective means of providing airline passengers with mobile broadband
connectivity, while preventing harmful interference to terrestrial
wireless networks. Indeed, as noted above, Airborne Access Systems are
used to provide mobile broadband connectivity on flights in Europe and
Asia. To date, we are unaware of any instances of harmful interference
to terrestrial systems
[[Page 2620]]
resulting from the use of PEDs in conjunction with an Airborne Access
System on airborne aircraft. While these international systems
primarily utilize GSM technology, such use also is now permissible with
other mobile technologies such as CDMA and LTE. We seek comment on the
use of non-GSM mobile technologies onboard aircraft and ask commenters
to submit technical analyses and studies to support their arguments. We
also seek comment on whether the potential for harmful interference to
terrestrial networks could vary depending on how heavily Airborne
Access Systems are used. Further, while we believe that airborne
picocells are a proven technology and could be used as effective
Airborne Access Systems on domestic flights, consistent with our
commitment to technological neutrality, we propose to permit any type
of Airborne Access System that meets the technical requirements set
forth in the rules and any applicable rules and approval procedures
required by the FAA.
3. Technical Requirements
32. Based on the available research and international practices, we
tentatively conclude that Airborne Access Systems can be used to
facilitate airborne mobile broadband access without causing harmful
interference to terrestrial networks. We therefore propose to allow
airborne use of mobile devices controlled by a properly managed
Airborne Access System.
33. Our review of existing operations reveals that, for an Airborne
Access System to effectively manage emissions from mobile broadband-
capable devices, certain technical restrictions must be enforced.
Specifically, three types of devices transmitting aboard the aircraft
must be limited in power to prevent harmful interference to terrestrial
networks: (1) The mobile device; (2) the picocell; and (3) the NCU.
Measures that may be taken to limit power include, but are not
necessarily limited to, mobile power restrictions, aircraft picocell
power restrictions, NCU power and/or technology limitations, altitude
restrictions, and methods to prevent an airborne mobile phone from
accessing the terrestrial CMRS network. We use the technical analyses
and conclusions released by CEPT earlier this year on these matters as
a baseline for our technical inquiries. We note that this report
focused only on European commercial mobile spectrum bands, and believe
that CEPT's findings are a solid foundation on which we can adopt
technical requirements. We seek comments on this belief, as well as on
the potential implications of the use of different spectrum bands in
the United States. Are there any differences between the commercial
mobile spectrum bands used in the EU and those used in the United
States that would affect the relevant CEPT findings? We also ask
commenters to provide us with any tests or technical analyses that have
been performed regarding the use of Airborne Access Systems over
commercial mobile spectrum bands in use in the United States. We note
that the international systems appear to offer service only in a
particular frequency band or bands. Should Airborne Access Systems be
permitted to operate only in particular frequency bands? If so, which
bands and what impact might this have on competition?
a. Mobile Device
34. Unmanaged airborne PEDs will attempt to connect and in some
cases will succeed in temporarily connecting to a terrestrial system,
causing harmful interference and disruption to the system it is
connected to and to surrounding systems. Thus, airborne mobile devices
must be operated at sufficiently low power levels to prevent harmful
interference with terrestrial broadband networks while still being able
to communicate with the Airborne Access System.
35. CEPT MCA Report 48 concluded that an Airborne Access System
would not interfere with terrestrial networks provided it met certain
technical criteria. It defined acceptable radiation from various
sources for a point outside the aircraft at various altitudes. At 3,000
meters (approximately 9,842 feet), the report specifies an aggregate
effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) of 3.1 dBm/3.84 megahertz
outside the aircraft for up to 20 individual mobile UMTS devices
limited to -6 dBm/3.84 megahertz. The report also specifies a limit of
1.7 dBm/5 megahertz for individual LTE devices transmitting at 5 dBm/5
megahertz at 3,000 meters. Because the analysis in CEPT MCA Report 48
is limited to frequency bands utilized within the EU, we request
comment on whether the same findings are applicable to systems
operating on bands used for commercial mobile radio services in the
United States and whether any adjustments to CEPT MCA Report 48's
findings or methods should be made. For example, the report assumed
operation in the 2100 MHz and 1800 MHz bands. The limitations discussed
above, if applicable, could be adjusted to account for changes in free
space path loss for operation on U.S. spectrum. We encourage commenters
to submit relevant data and studies pertaining to bands used for
commercial mobile radio services in the United States. What, if any,
adjustments to these assumptions must be made for other mobile
technologies? We also request comment on whether it is necessary to
limit the number of mobiles in operation, or if an aggregate limit for
emissions from the aircraft is sufficient to protect terrestrial
systems from harmful interference. Is such an approach practical?
Should the rules require the Airborne Access System to limit the
maximum in-cabin transmit power of individual mobile units rather than
specifying the allowable aggregate EIRP outside the aircraft?
Commenters should include technical analyses to support their
proposals, including the costs and benefits of adopting a particular
approach.
b. Aircraft Picocell
35. The aircraft picocell communicates with the individual mobile
devices onboard the aircraft and with its air-to-ground or satellite
backhaul link. The power of onboard picocells must be limited to
prevent harmful interference to the terrestrial network. CEPT MCA
Report 48 limits the EIRP outside the aircraft from picocell
transmissions to 1.0 dBm/3.84 megahertz for UMTS and 1.0 dBm/megahertz
for LTE. We request comment on whether these levels are appropriate and
can be applied to operations on U.S. commercial mobile spectrum bands.
We also encourage commenters to submit relevant data and studies
pertaining to bands used for commercial mobile radio services in the
United States. What would be an appropriate method of making
measurements or otherwise determining compliance? How should the
Commission approach equipment authorization of picocells given that
compliance would be determined by the aircraft in which the system is
installed? We also request comment on whether we should limit the type
of technology utilized for communications between the picocell and
onboard mobiles to minimize the risk of harmful interference with
terrestrial networks. We note that in its initial report, CEPT limited
its analysis of communication services aboard aircraft to picocells
operating with GSM technology but its more recent report offers
expanded analysis on both UMTS and LTE. From an interference
standpoint, are some technologies used on airborne aircraft less likely
to cause harmful interference to terrestrial networks than others?
[[Page 2621]]
c. Network Control Unit
36. The NCU prevents mobile devices from connecting to the
terrestrial network while on the aircraft. Uncontrolled, some mobile
devices are capable of contacting terrestrial networks, even at
altitudes exceeding 3,048 meters (10,000 feet). The NCU raises the
noise floor within the aircraft cabin to prevent onboard mobile devices
from communicating with the terrestrial network. NCUs also must be
limited in power to prevent harmful interference to terrestrial
networks. CEPT MCA Report 48 specifies for operations in the 2600 MHz
(2500-2570 MHz and 2620-2690 MHz) band a limit at 3000 meters of 1.9
dBm/4.75 megahertz and for operations in the 800 MHz (790-862 MHz) band
the limit is 0.87 dBm/10 megahertz. The EC previously established
limits for the 460-470 MHz, 921-960 MHz, 1805-1880 MHz, and 2110-2170
MHz bands in its Decision. Those findings were reaffirmed by CEPT MCA
Report 48. We request comment on whether these levels are appropriate
and can be applied to operations on domestic mobile spectrum bands. As
CEPT MCA Report 48 limits vary by frequency band, which of these limits
would be appropriate for each of the bands used for commercial mobile
service in the United States? We encourage commenters to submit
relevant data and studies pertaining to bands used for commercial
mobile radio services in the United States. We also seek comment on
whether there are other technical solutions that could prevent an
onboard mobile device from accessing the terrestrial network.
37. We also seek comment generally on CEPT's findings and technical
proposals. We ask that commenters address: (1) Whether Airborne Access
Systems can effectively prevent harmful interference into terrestrial
wireless networks; (2) whether alternative or supplemental
technological solutions would be more effective; (3) whether the
proposed power levels are appropriate; and (4) what additional
technical specifications may be needed to ensure that these systems and
airborne mobile broadband devices do not interfere with existing
terrestrial networks. We also request comment on any other technical
restrictions or requirements that may be necessary to prevent harmful
interference to terrestrial CMRS networks or to ensure reliable
communications for mobile communications services on aircraft, or
whether an alternative technical solution may be more appropriate in
the domestic marketplace. Commenters should include technical analyses
to support their proposals, including the costs and benefits of
adopting a particular approach.
38. We reiterate that the FAA is responsible for regulations
regarding the safety of passengers and crew aboard domestic aircraft.
As such, regardless of the ultimate disposition of this proceeding, all
elements of the Airborne Access Systems and any permissible airborne
mobile devices remain subject to applicable FAA rules. In addition,
elements of these systems may be subject to FAA certification, testing,
and approval; the FAA has a comprehensive process by which it certifies
all aspects of commercial and general aviation aircraft, and any
Airborne Access System presumably would be subject to these procedures.
In addition, in response to the ARC Report, the FAA has adopted
procedures to test and certify that aircraft manufactured in the United
States are tolerant of PED emissions.
39. Although any FAA actions related to the issues in this
proceeding are outside the Commission's scope, in order to fully
comprehend this regulatory framework, we seek information regarding any
aspect of the FAA's authority regarding Airborne Access Systems that we
should appropriately consider in this proceeding. We reiterate that we
are committed to working closely with other federal agencies that have
expertise and may have more appropriate jurisdiction in these areas.
40. Moreover, we note that, within the context of applicable FCC,
FAA, and DoT rules, individual airlines will have flexibility to deploy
or not deploy mobile communications services on an aircraft-by-aircraft
basis. For example, abroad, OnAir and AeroMobile offer airlines the
option of selecting which type of mobile communications services they
offer, and foreign airlines have chosen to offer the mobile
communications services in different ways. For example, Ireland's Aer
Lingus allows texting and Internet access using mobile communications
but does not allow the use of voice calls in the cabin, while the UK's
Virgin Atlantic offers passengers the option of accessing the Internet,
texting, and making voice calls through their mobile communications
system.
C. Airborne Commercial Mobile Use
41. We propose to allow aircraft station licensees to provide
airborne commercial mobile services as part of their aircraft station
license under part 87 of the Commission's rules and seek comment on
alternative authorization methodologies. Under any airborne
authorization scheme, Airborne Access Systems would be required to
manage in-flight mobile use. Mobile communications services controlled
by authorized Airborne Access Systems would be permitted across all
commercial mobile spectrum bands at altitudes above 3,048 meters
(10,000 feet). These authorizations would cover only in-cabin
operations. Moreover, any authorization method would require an
agreement with separately authorized satellite or air-to-ground
backhaul links to transmit mobile data from the aircraft to terrestrial
networks.
1. Part 87 Authorization Methodology
a. Part 87 Aircraft License Modification
42. We propose to revise part 87 of the Commission's rules to
permit mobile communications services on aircraft as one element of an
aircraft station license and seek comment on this proposal, as well as
alternative authorization frameworks. Part 87 of the Commission's rules
governs the authorization and use of radio services onboard aircraft,
between aircraft, and between air and ground stations for aircraft
travelling domestically and U.S. aircraft travelling to international
destinations (including international waters). See 47 CFR 87.1, et seq.
We note that U.S.-registered civil aircraft licensed for an Airborne
Access System would bear the responsibility of ascertaining and
complying with the applicable laws, regulations, and rules of any
foreign nation in which they seek to operate. Unless exempted, airlines
must obtain an aircraft station license to cover any radio equipment or
services other than certain two-way VHF, radar, or emergency locator
services. Under certain conditions, two or more aircraft having a
common owner or operator may be issued a single fleet license to cover
all aircraft stations in a given fleet. We seek comment on how this
proposal would work with FAA's established airframe dependent equipment
certification procedures.
43. Authorizing the proposed use in this manner would allow
airlines and other commercial aircraft operators to install and operate
Airborne Access Systems as part of their existing aircraft station or
fleet licenses. Aircraft station licensees would be required to file
for a modification of their existing aircraft station or fleet licenses
on FCC Form 605 to include the newly designated airborne mobile
communications authorization. To the extent that an aircraft operator
does not have an aircraft station license, that aircraft operator
would, under this proposal, be
[[Page 2622]]
required to apply for an aircraft station license in order to operate
an Airborne Access System. Licensees would be permitted to contract
with third parties to install and operate Airborne Access System aboard
licensed aircraft. However, aircraft station licensees would retain
sole responsibility for ensuring that such equipment is installed and
operated in accordance with all applicable rules.
44. The airborne radio environment is interference-sensitive and
must be closely controlled by aircraft station licensees to ensure
stable operation of mission critical equipment, the safety of aircraft
passengers and crew, and compliance with all applicable rules and
regulations. Aircraft station licensees currently manage this unique
environment for a wide variety of radio services in accordance with FCC
and FAA rules. As such, they may be well positioned to ensure that
Airborne Access Systems are properly operated and integrated into the
existing device ecosystem. Indeed, regardless of the authorization
scheme we select, no Airborne Access System could be installed and
operated without the permission, supervision, and control of aircraft
station licensees. In addition, modifying existing aircraft fleet or
station licenses to include proposed airborne mobile communications use
should not impose significant administrative burdens on applicants or
the Commission. Finally, this proposal is roughly analogous to the
successful authorization regimes adopted by other administrations in
recent years.
45. We propose to retain the current licensing assignment methods
applicable to part 87 aircraft station licenses. Although we propose to
permit licensees to provide a new service offering, the underlying
functions of aircraft station licenses remains the same. Under this
proposal, existing aircraft station licensees seeking to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft could request a modification of
their current authorizations to permit operation of an Airborne Access
System, and applicants for new aircraft station authorizations could
indicate on their applications their intention to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft. We seek comment on whether such
license modifications must be placed on public notice for thirty days
pursuant to section 309 of the Communications Act. We seek comment on
this proposed authorization approach, as well as the alternative
authorization mechanisms listed below, and on what changes, if any, may
need to be made to the table of allocations to reflect this licensing
regime.
46. We acknowledge that, with respect to the NCU transmissions and
the communications between the picocell and the consumer mobile
devices, the Airborne Access System proposed here would operate on
spectrum licensed to mobile service providers for terrestrial wireless
use. However, we do not propose to modify the existing rights of
commercial mobile licensees or otherwise impede their ability to
provide mobile services within their license areas. Under our proposal,
aircraft operators should be able to offer access to wireless services
to the limited confines of the in-cabin environment in a safe and
effective manner--and thereby extend broadband service to an otherwise
difficult-to-serve market segment--while protecting incumbent
terrestrial licensees from harmful interference and without infringing
upon incumbents' existing operations. We seek comment on this proposal,
including potential impacts it may have on the existing rights of
terrestrial mobile licensees.
b. Alternative Authorization Methods
47. We also seek comment on alternative authorization methods. For
completeness, we describe several alternatives below, although we
acknowledge that some of these methods may suffer from deficiencies
that make them less desirable in a public interest analysis. We also
request comment on other approaches that are not enumerated below. We
encourage commenters to provide details on how any authorization
regime, including the part 87 authorization method described above,
would work in practice (including the relationship with other licensees
or services authorized in the same frequency bands), how it would
further the various public interest goals enumerated in this NPRM, and
its relative costs and benefits.
48. Non-Exclusive License. One alternative authorization method
would establish an Airborne Access System Service pursuant to which
applicants could file for non-exclusive licenses to provide airborne
mobile services. Eligibility for such licenses would be limited to
applicants with appropriate commercial agreements with aircraft
operators to operate such systems on specific aircraft. Would such an
authorization system provide additional benefits to the public or to
aircraft station licensees? Under this alternative authorization
scheme, would the airlines retain sufficient control over the in-cabin
environment to ensure that services are provided safely and
effectively? Are there any additional eligibility conditions that
should be required of licensees under this authorization method?
49. Secondary Markets. Another option would authorize operation of
an Airborne Access System pursuant to spectrum lease agreements with
mobile wireless service providers. We observe that for any given
flight, an aircraft is likely to fly above license areas for many
different licensees. Moreover, the licensees implicated will likely
vary throughout the course of the flight. The Commission has issued
thousands of geographic mobile licenses. There are over 14,166
licenses, held by approximately 788 unique entities (based on licensee
FCC Registration Number), for the spectrum bands within the scope of
this NPRM. Would this authorization method be administrable in
practice? How would the Commission ensure that a leasing arrangement
involves the necessary parties? Would it require the cooperation of
every mobile wireless service provider? Would the use of a leasing
framework introduce market efficiencies or inefficiencies not present
in other authorization models? Under this alternative, how would the
Commission determine the boundaries of mobile licenses along a flight
path and at various altitudes, especially considering the curvature of
the earth?
50. Auctioned Sky Licenses. Alternately, should the Commission
create nationwide or geographic ``sky licenses'' and allow eligible
applicants to bid on these licenses via auction? Would such an
authorization system provide unique benefits to the public or to
aircraft station licensees? How would the Commission determine the
geographic boundaries of such licenses and the proper number of
licensees for each geographic area? How would such a licensing
construct affect the ability of airlines to manage their in-cabin
environment? Would such an authorization method create ``artificial''
limitations on market-based agreements between airlines and Airborne
Access System providers?
51. Unlicensed Use or License-by-Rule. Should the Commission
authorize unlicensed use of an Airborne Access System pursuant to our
part 15 rules? Alternatively, would a license-by-rule approach be
appropriate? Both methods appear, on first consideration, to raise
significant issues with respect to providing airlines sufficient
ability to manage mobile access in flight and to mitigate potential
harmful interference into terrestrial networks. Do commenters agree?
How would such authorization mechanisms work in
[[Page 2623]]
practice? Would they require revisions to existing rule parts? Would
these methodologies offer appropriate Commission oversight of the
mobile communications services being proposed?
52. Commenters that advocate an alternative authorization
methodology should support their arguments with detailed technical and
legal analyses. Commenters should also address how the issues raised in
Sections III.C.2. and 3. below would apply for any alternative
authorization scheme.
2. Scope of the Authorization
53. To facilitate the widespread use of airborne mobile data
services, we propose to authorize aircraft station licensees to operate
Airborne Access Systems that encompass all domestic commercial mobile
spectrum bands. Most broadband capable mobile devices are capable of
accessing multiple commercial mobile spectrum bands which vary by
device and mobile service provider. We tentatively conclude that
permitting Airborne Access Systems to operate across all such bands
would provide greater access to broadband data for the travelling
public, and is consistent with the Commission's longstanding policy of
technological neutrality. However, our proposal does not require a
compliant Airborne Access System to cover all commercial mobile
spectrum bands or wireless technologies. We seek comments on our
proposal to not require Airborne Access Systems to cover all commercial
mobile spectrum bands, including on whether this approach may increase
the risk of harmful interference to terrestrial networks.
54. We further propose that airborne commercial broadband
operations be permitted only at altitudes exceeding 3,048 meters
(10,000 feet). The available research suggests that, at those
altitudes, there is little to no risk of harmful interference into
terrestrial mobile networks from properly managed airborne mobile
operations. Moreover, this service floor is consistent with the rules
established by the EU for airborne GSM mobile use. As noted above, we
are unaware of any instances of harmful interference from properly
managed airborne mobile broadband operations at altitudes above 3,048
meters (10,000 feet) into terrestrial mobile networks. We seek comment
on whether the 3,048 meter (10,000 feet) service floor is appropriate
for all mobile technologies (e.g., CDMA, GSM, and LTE) and spectrum
bands. We also seek comment as to whether we should allow Airborne
Access Systems to remain operational below 3,048 meters (10,000 feet),
even if mobile communications services are not permitted at that
altitude. Could low altitude Airborne Access System use actually help
mitigate harmful interference by preventing activated mobile devices
from attempting to access terrestrial networks? We encourage commenters
to support their arguments with detailed technical studies and analyses
for domestic commercial mobile spectrum bands and technologies,
including detailed analyses of the costs and benefits of any such
proposals.
55. We tentatively conclude that, if adopted, our proposal to
permit the provision of mobile communications services on aircraft-by-
aircraft station licensees at altitudes above 3,048 meters (10,000
feet) would promote the public interest by expanding mobile broadband
coverage to consumers in an efficient, non-interfering manner. The
deployment of Airborne Access Systems aboard commercial aircraft could
provide significant public benefits without harming existing
terrestrial licensees in the band. Moreover, terrestrial mobile
licensees could benefit from this new commercial service offering if
they choose to partner with aircraft station licensees on commercial
connection agreements. We seek comment on these proposals and
conclusions as well as viable alternative models. Commenters should
provide detailed legal and technical analyses in support of their
proposals, including detailed analyses of the costs and benefits of any
such proposals.
3. Other Authorization and Licensing Issues
56. Regulatory Status. While aircraft stations authorized under
part 87 are typically considered private mobile radio services, we
propose to allow aircraft station licensees choosing to offer mobile
communications services using an Airborne Access System to specify
their regulatory status depending on the service they are providing.
The Commission's current radio service license application requires an
applicant for mobile services to identify the regulatory status of the
service(s) it intends to provide because service offerings may bear on
the applicant's eligibility to be a licensee, and other statutory and
regulatory requirements. In applying that model, an applicant is
permitted to choose among several regulatory classifications (e.g.,
common carrier, non-common carrier, or private, internal
communications), or a combination thereof, and prospective airborne
mobile licensees may benefit from a similar approach. We seek comment
on the merits of applying a similar licensing approach to the provision
of mobile communications services on aircraft and ask that commenters
discuss the costs and benefits of this approach. We also seek comment
on whether there are any obligations under a particular classification
that should not apply to mobile communications services on aircraft.
For example, should an aircraft station licensee that elects a common
carrier regulatory status be required to comply with all rules
applicable to CMRS licensees under part 20 of the Commission's rules
given the limited scope of the in-cabin service offering? For example,
Sec. 20.15 identifies requirements relating to Title II of the
Communications Act that are applicable to CMRS licensees. See 47 CFR
20.15. Such Title II requirements include the obligation to provide
service ``upon reasonable request therefor,'' and at a ``just and
reasonable'' rate, 47 U.S.C. 201, as well as the requirement to provide
services without ``unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges,
practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.'' 47
U.S.C. 202. Other obligations identified in part 20 include 911
service, hearing aid compatibility as well as roaming. See 47 CFR
20.12, 20.18, 20.19.
57. If the Commission permits an aircraft station licensee to
choose its regulatory status in this manner, we propose that such
licensees must identify their regulatory status on the FCC Form 605.
Form 605 would be modified to incorporate this proposal. We also
propose that if a licensee changes the service it offers such that it
would be inconsistent with its regulatory status, the licensee must
notify the Commission. Further, we propose that licensees must file the
notice within 30 days of a change made without the need for prior
Commission approval. We seek comment on whether a different time period
should apply where the change results in the discontinuance, reduction,
or impairment of the existing service. We seek comment on alternative
proposals regarding changes to the regulatory status of a mobile
communications services on aircraft provider and the costs and benefits
of such proposals.
58. Given our proposal to allow an aircraft station licensee to
choose its regulatory status, we note that all Commission licensees are
subject to the provisions of section 310 of the Act. Section 310
requires the Commission to review foreign investment in radio station
licenses and imposes specific restrictions on who may hold certain
types of radio licenses. Specifically,
[[Page 2624]]
section 310(a) of the Act expressly prohibits a foreign government or
its representative from holding any radio license. Further, section
310(b) places additional restrictions on who can hold a broadcast,
common carrier, aeronautical en route and aeronautical fixed radio
station license. In particular, the foreign ownership restrictions in
sections 310(b)(3) and (b)(4) may be implicated for those airlines that
have foreign ownership--whether governmental or non-governmental--where
the airline provider seeks authorization to provide a common carrier
service under the rules adopted in this proceeding. We therefore
tentatively conclude that we should revise FCC Form 605 to require all
applicants to answer foreign ownership questions to ensure compliance
with section 310. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
59. Connection with Terrestrial Networks. The rules governing
connection with terrestrial networks would vary depending on the
regulatory classification selected by a given aircraft station
licensee. Aircraft station licensees that choose to register as CMRS
providers would be subject to applicable part 20 and common carrier
obligations. The requirements applicable to a regulatory classification
would govern the rights and obligations of licensees' connections to
terrestrial networks. All licensees would be permitted to enter into
commercial agreements with terrestrial mobile licensees for connection
to their terrestrial wireless networks. We seek comment on the costs
and benefits of this approach and any other approaches that may be used
to connect mobile communications services on aircraft with terrestrial
networks.
60. Handset Authorization. Section 301 of the Communications Act
requires a valid FCC license to operate a radio frequency transmitter,
including a wireless handset, aircard, or other mobile broadband
device. This statutory requirement is reflected in the Commission's
rules, which require either an FCC license or licensee consent to
operate a station in the Wireless Radio Services. Our proposal grants
aircraft station licensees authorization to operate Airborne Access
Systems on commercial mobile spectrum bands. As the definition of
Wireless Radio Services includes services provided pursuant to part 87
of the Commission's rules, we conclude that, for purposes of airborne
mobile communications services operations, wireless devices can be
operated as subscriber equipment under the aircraft station license,
consistent with the proposed rules set forth in this NPRM. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
61. Section 333. Section 333 of the Communications Act states that
``[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or
authorized by or under this Act. . . .'' The proposed Airborne Access
Systems likely will operate by maintaining transmissions from mobile
devices operating on commercial mobile spectrum bands at or near their
lowest power level, thereby preventing these devices from attempting to
access terrestrial base stations. We tentatively conclude that,
pursuant to Sec. 1.903 of the Commission's rules, mobile units would
be deemed to be authorized and operated under the aircraft station
license. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that operation of an
Airborne Access System to prevent mobile transmissions from affecting
terrestrial base stations constitutes a proper network management
function and is not the willful or malicious interference at issue in
section 333. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
62. Federal Spectrum. Most of the Airborne Access Systems currently
authorized by foreign countries operate, at least partially, in the
1800 MHz band, consistent with international commercial allocation of
this band. It is conceivable that U.S.-registered aircraft that wish to
offer airborne mobile communications services will choose Airborne
Access Systems with the technical ability to operate in that band,
particularly those aircraft that operate internationally. Included in
this band are the frequencies 1755-1850 MHz, which in the United States
currently is allocated on an exclusive basis to the United States
federal government for fixed and mobile services, including airborne
systems. We therefore propose requiring airlines (whether U.S.-
registered or registered by another administration) operating an
Airborne Access System in the 1755-1850 MHz frequency band to turn off
the Airborne Access System or otherwise disengage transmission in this
band prior to reaching U.S. airspace. We also invite commenters to
provide technical studies demonstrating what is sufficient to prevent
harmful interference in the 1755-1850 MHz band. We seek comment on this
proposal, including potential in-flight enforcement issues. We also
note that the Commission has proposed to make the 1755-1780 MHz band
available for shared federal and non-federal use. We seek comment on
what, if any, impact such shared operations could have on the proposals
set forth in this NPRM. In addition, we note that other bands are
subject to operational limitations that could affect their availability
for airborne commercial mobile operations. We seek comment on what, if
any, impact such operational limitations could have on the proposals
set forth in this NPRM. Given our proposal to prohibit operations on
Federal frequencies, we invite comment as to whether it would be
technologically feasible for systems designed for international flights
to switch to authorized non-federal frequency bands in United States
airspace.
4. Applicability to Non-U.S.-Registered Aircraft Operating in U.S.
Airspace
63. Non-U.S.-registered aircraft with Airborne Access Systems
currently turn off airborne mobile communications services before
entering U.S. airspace. We seek comment on whether it is in the public
interest to allow aircraft authorized by a foreign government to
provide mobile communications services to continue operating its
Airborne Access System within U.S. airspace and thereby provide
uninterrupted airborne mobile communications services to its
passengers.
64. We also seek comment on the appropriate regulatory framework
for the operation of Airborne Access Systems on non-U.S.-registered
aircraft within U.S. territory. The ability of a foreign entity to use
spectrum or operate radio equipment within the United States stems from
rights derived from international agreements, or from direct
authorization from the United States. Accordingly, in determining how
such use may be permitted, we must take several factors into
consideration, including the applicability of international agreements
to which we are a party.
65. The United States is a signatory to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), which provides a
mechanism for recognizing foreign licenses. Under the Chicago
Convention, aircraft registered to a member country may use radio
transmitter equipment over another country's territory provided that
the transmitter is licensed by the country that registered the aircraft
and that said use is in compliance with the regulations of the country
over which the aircraft is flying. The Chicago Convention also provides
that licenses issued by member nations must be equal to or above the
minimum standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO). As we
[[Page 2625]]
interpret the Chicago Convention, foreign-registered aircraft do not
currently have authority to operate an Airborne Access System within
U.S. airspace as such use is not currently permitted under the
Commission's rules.
66. Further, to the extent the Commission adopts rules to permit
mobile communications services on aircraft, a non-U.S.-registered
carrier may operate an Airborne Access System that complies with such
rules. Moreover, we are not aware that ICAO has adopted or intends to
adopt standards and recommended practices for the operation of Airborne
Access System pursuant to the Chicago Convention. We therefore
tentatively conclude that the Chicago Convention is not an independent
source of authorization for foreign airlines to operate an Airborne
Access System within U.S. airspace. It also does not appear that other
agreements offer a means by which the United States may recognize the
authority of a foreign-registered aircraft to operate an Airborne
Access System. We also are not aware of any bilateral agreements
between the United States and any other administrations that would
serve as a mechanism for allowing foreign-registered aircraft to
operate an Airborne Access System over U.S. airspace.
67. In light of these considerations, we tentatively conclude that
current agreements do not provide non-U.S.-registered carriers
independent authorization to operate Airborne Access Systems in U.S.
airspace. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Commenters
believing otherwise should identify the applicable agreement(s) and
legal authority under which we may permit such operation. We also
request comment on any other mechanisms that might allow for
recognition of an Airborne Access System authorization issued by
another administration.
68. Assuming that there are no international agreements permitting
foreign-registered aircraft to operate an Airborne Access System within
U.S. airspace, we seek comment as to whether the Commission should
directly authorize such use on the same terms that would apply to
Airborne Access System operation onboard domestic aircraft.
Specifically, operators of foreign-registered aircraft would be
permitted to apply for an aircraft station license under part 87 for
the purpose of providing access to airborne mobile communications
services to passengers while within U.S. airspace. For foreign-
registered aircraft, the part 87 aircraft station license would
authorize Airborne Access System operation only and would not cover
other aircraft station functions. We seek comment on this proposal, as
well as on any alternative licensing approaches. Commenters should
discuss the costs and benefits of this or any alternative proposal. We
note that applications for such authorizations would be subject to the
foreign ownership provisions of sections 310(a) and (b) of the Act,
just as they apply to operators of U.S.-registered aircraft.
D. Other Issues
1. Service Below 3,048 Meters (10,000 Feet)
69. As noted previously, the proposed 3,048 meter (10,000 feet)
altitude floor for airborne mobile communications services would
minimize the risk of harmful interference with terrestrial networks and
is consistent with FAA regulations and international practices.
However, there may be circumstances where mobile communications
services on aircraft operating below 3,048 meters (10,000 feet) would
be in the public interest and would not cause harmful interference. We
seek comment as to whether there are circumstances in which mobile
communications services on aircraft would not raise the concerns set
forth above (e.g., in low flying, slow moving aircraft) and whether the
3,048 meter (10,000 feet) altitude limit and/or Airborne Access System
requirement would be necessary in such cases. For instance, certain
providers of critical public services routinely operate aircraft at
altitudes below 3,048 meters (10,000 feet) and may have a need for
mobile communications services at these altitudes. These operators
include medical evacuation, police departments, news organizations, and
public safety entities. Could these use cases be accommodated within
the proposed rules? What would the appropriate regulatory and technical
parameters be for the use of mobile communications services on aircraft
by these and other, similarly situated entities?
70. While we propose to authorize service only above 3,048 meters
(10,000 feet) for all commercial aircraft, we also seek comment
generally on the technical viability, safety, and legality of mobile
communications services on aircraft below 3,048 meters (10,000 feet)
(or other reasonable altitude limit adopted in this proceeding) for
specific purposes on certain types of aircraft. Would operations below
3,048 meters (10,000 feet) be technically viable? Should Airborne
Access Systems be permitted to remain in operation at altitudes below
3,048 meters (10,000 feet)? Would such low altitude operations help to
mitigate the potential for harmful interference from mobile devices
into terrestrial mobile networks? If allowed, would such operations
require the permission of terrestrial CMRS licensees? We emphasize that
nothing in this proposal should be read to contradict the FAA's
authority to determine the proper conditions for operation of PEDs on
aircraft.
2. Voice Service Onboard Aircraft
71. In response to the 2004 Airborne Mobile NPRM, commenters raised
concerns regarding the use of voice services on airborne aircraft. We
note that airborne voice service, e.g., 800 MHz Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service, has been available on many airlines for years,
although we understand that voice service has been little-used. At the
time of the Airborne Mobile NPRM proceeding, commercial wireless was
primarily a voice service. Today, commercial mobile services are used
much more heavily for data services and Internet access. We appreciate
that some people and organizations may continue to have concerns about
permitting voice services on aircraft. We also note that international
airlines offering airborne mobile voice and data services have not
experienced significant problems related to voice. Yet, consistent with
our review of our technical rules and commitment to technological
neutrality, our proposal would create an avenue through which airlines
may choose to offer consumers an additional way to access mobile
broadband services while in flight.
72. Nothing in this proposal would require or ensure the provision
of voice service on airplanes. Individual airlines would determine
whether this option would, in fact, be available to their passengers.
The airlines themselves would be free to choose and manage the types of
in-flight data and voice services they provide, subject to applicable
FAA and DoT rules or guidelines with respect to safety and etiquette.
These considerations notwithstanding, however, we seek comment on
whether it is appropriate for the Commission to take concerns regarding
the use of voice service into account in this proceeding. Specifically,
we seek comment on the operational impacts that may stem from the
provision of voice service, and whether the Commission has any role in
addressing such effects. We also recognize that the provision of
wireless services, including, but not limited to, voice onboard
aircraft may require consumer education to ensure that consumers are
aware of what FCC rules
[[Page 2626]]
do and do not permit. We seek comment on the ways that the Commission
can help consumers understand our current rules and any rules that the
Commission may ultimately adopt in this proceeding.
3. Agreements With Canada and Mexico
73. We conclude that any Airborne Access System rules we adopt in
this proceeding would limit such operations to U.S. airspace and would
require such operations to comply with current and future international
agreements with Mexico and Canada. Until such time as any agreements
between the United States, Mexico and/or Canada can be agreed to for
the proposed airborne mobile communications service, any operations
conducted pursuant to rules adopted in this proceeding must not cause
harmful interference across the border, and must operate consistent
with the terms of the international agreements currently in force. We
also note that it may be necessary to modify any rules adopted in this
proceeding to codify future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding
the aeronautical use of these bands. We seek comment on these
conclusions.
4. Law Enforcement and Public Safety
74. While this NPRM focuses primarily on the technical parameters
and licensing mechanisms by which we may allow airlines to offer mobile
wireless services on aircraft, we recognize that our proposals may also
raise public safety, law enforcement and national security concerns. We
note that wireless service providers are currently obligated to provide
assistance to law enforcement agencies with respect to the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
Specifically, Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 in order to preserve the
ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance
by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment,
facilities, and services to ensure that they have necessary
surveillance capabilities. In addition to telecommunications carriers
identified in CALEA and its legislative history, the Commission has
concluded that facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and
providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service
would also be deemed to be ``telecommunications carriers'' for purposes
of applying CALEA. Accordingly, we propose that any mobile wireless
services offered by Airborne Access System operators would be subject
to the provisions of CALEA, regardless of whether such offerings are
voice or data services.
75. Beyond satisfying CALEA obligations, satellite providers, ESAA
operators, as well as 800 MHz Air-Ground licensees address specific
public safety, law enforcement, and national security concerns through
individual negotiations with law enforcement agencies. We anticipate
that an entity seeking to provide mobile wireless services through the
use of an Airborne Access System would follow the established process
and work diligently with law enforcement agencies to address any public
safety, law enforcement, and national security concerns through
individual negotiations and agreements.
76. We seek comment on whether there are additional measures that
the Commission should take to address in-flight safety and security
concerns beyond CALEA obligations and individual agreements among
service providers and law enforcement agencies. While we again
emphasize that issues of onboard security and safety of flight are
matters primarily reserved for the FAA, DoT, and the airlines, there
may be measures within our regulatory purview that can be taken to
further the Commission's interests in preserving and promoting public
safety and homeland security. We therefore request that commenters
identify specific public safety, law enforcement and national security-
related concerns that may stem from the Commission's proposals, and the
steps that the Commission could take to address those concerns.
III. Ex Parte Rules
77. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
78. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this NPRM. Written comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
79. By this NPRM, we propose to allow airlines (or more
specifically, station licensees) to provide mobile communications
services on aircraft (mobile communications services on aircraft).
Currently, the Commission's rules prohibit airborne use of mobile
devices in the 800 MHz cellular band and restrict use in the 800 MHz
SMR band, while the rules governing other commercial mobile spectrum
bands are silent. Since a previous Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
sought to address these restrictions was terminated in 2007, more than
forty jurisdictions, including the European
[[Page 2627]]
Union and Australia, have authorized the use of mobile communications
services on aircraft. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no
reports of these services causing any harmful interference to
terrestrial networks. We believe that it is in the public interest to
bring the benefits of mobile communications services on aircraft to
domestic consumers and that the proposals set forth in this NPRM
further our recent efforts to expand access to airborne broadband
services.
80. We propose to allow mobile communications services on aircraft
by: (1) Removing existing restrictions on airborne use of mobile
devices in the 800 MHz cellular and 800 MHz SMR bands; (2) harmonizing
regulations governing the operation of mobile devices on airborne
aircraft across all commercial mobile spectrum bands; and (3)
implementing a comprehensive regulatory framework to promote airborne
mobile data use using all commercial mobile spectrum bands.
81. Under our proposal, we would add the authority to provide
mobile communications services on aircraft across all commercial mobile
spectrum bands (as categorized below) to the existing part 87 aircraft
station licenses of domestic airlines. Alternatively, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether we should permit inflight mobile wireless service
using an alternative authorization method. Alternatives could include:
(1) Non-exclusive licenses by which applicants, an airline or other
entity, could file to provide airborne wireless services; (2)
terrestrial license leases whereby an airline could provide service
through lease agreements with mobile wireless service licensees; (3)
auctioned ``sky licenses'' covering nationwide or geographic markets
that would be assigned pursuant to competitive bidding, or; (4)
unlicensed use or license-by-rule whereby eligible entities would be
permitted to operate without the Commission issuing individual
licenses.
82. We propose to allow mobile communications services on aircraft
only if managed by an Airborne Access System (Airborne Access System),
which would control the emissions of onboard portable electronic
devices by requiring them to remain at or near their lowest
transmitting power level and prevent such devices from causing harmful
interference to terrestrial networks. We also propose to limit mobile
communications services on aircraft to aircraft travelling at altitudes
above 3,048 meters (10,000 feet).
B. Legal Basis
83. This action is taken under sections 1, 4(i), 11, and 303(r) and
(y), 308, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 161, 303(r), (y), 308, 309, and 332.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
84. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted herein. The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
85. In addition, we have adopted criteria for defining three groups
of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for
special provisions such as bidding credits. We have defined a small
business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40
million for the preceding three years. A very small business is defined
as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15
million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small
size standards.
86. In the following paragraphs, we further describe and estimate
the number and type of small entities that may be affected by the
proposals set forth in the NPRM. If our proposals are adopted, small
airlines that choose to implement mobile communications services on
aircraft could be required to modify their existing part 87 licenses
and comply with new regulatory requirements, including as to the mobile
communications services on aircraft equipment. Such compliance would
involve, to varying degrees, the services described below. Under our
proposals, an airline would be permitted to negotiate commercial
agreements with the entities described in the following. It is possible
that an airline could negotiate agreements affecting all communications
services listed, or an airline may reach agreements involving only
certain categories.
87. The NPRM also request comment on whether we should permit
inflight mobile wireless services through alternative licensing
methodologies. In such cases, any eligible entity (airlines or others)
would be permitted to provide mobile wireless services onboard
aircraft. In such cases, the authorized parties could be any of the
service providers listed below. In addition, any device manufacturers
that choose to manufacture devices for mobile communications services
on aircraft use will have to ensure that such devices comply with any
rules adopted in this proceeding.
88. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The proposals set forth in the NPRM, may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We
therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory
small entity size standards that encompass entities that could be
directly affected by the proposals under consideration. As of 2009,
small businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in
the United States, according to the SBA. Additionally, a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is
defined generally as ``governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2007
indicate that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761
entities may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we
estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
89. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad,
economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within
the now-superseded categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category census data 2007 show that there were
11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
10,791 establishments had employment of 999
[[Page 2628]]
or fewer employees and 372 had employment of 1000 employees or more.
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that
may be affected by our proposed action
90. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
91. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Trends in
Telephone Service data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in
wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more than
half of these entities can be considered small.
92. Cellular Licenses. The Cellular Radiotelephone (Cellular)
Service is in the 824-849 and 869-894 MHz spectrum range. The most
common use of cellular spectrum is mobile voice and data services,
including cell phone, text messaging, and Internet.
93. The Commission adopted initial rules governing allocation of
spectrum for commercial Cellular service, including the establishment
of two channel blocks (Blocks A and B), in 1981. To issue cellular
licenses, the FCC divided the U.S. into 734 geographic markets called
Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) and divided the 40 megahertz of spectrum
into two, 20 megahertz amounts referred to as channel blocks; channel
block A and channel block B. A single license for the A block and the B
block were made available in each market. The B block of spectrum was
awarded to a local wireline carrier that provided landline telephone
service in the CMA. The A block was awarded to non-wireline carriers.
The wireline/non-wireline distinction for cellular licenses no longer
exists.
94. The licensee of the initial license was provided a five-year
period to expand coverage within the CMA. The area timely built out
during that five-year period became the licensee's initial Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA), while any area not built out by the
five-year mark was automatically relinquished for re-licensing on a
site-by-site basis by the Commission.
95. The Commission established a two phase licensing approach for
areas that reverted back to the FCC. Phase I was a one-time process
that started as soon as the five-year period ended and allowed parties
to file an application to operate a new cellular system or expand an
existing cellular system. Phase I licensing is no longer available.
Phase II is an on-going process that allows parties to apply for
unserved areas after Phase I ended. At this point, all cellular
licensing is in Phase II. On June 4, 2002, the Commission completed the
auction of three cellular Rural Service Area licenses. Three winning
bidders won a total of 3 licenses in this auction. On June 17, 2008,
the Commission completed the closed auction of one unserved service
area. The auction concluded with one provisionally winning bid for the
unserved area totaling $25,002. No bidders in either auction received
small business bidding credits.
96. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous years. For
Block F licenses, an additional small business size standard for ``very
small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together
with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15
million for the preceding three years. These small business size
standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved
by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business
size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There
were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first
two C Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed ``small'' and
``very small'' business status won licenses in the first auction of the
D, E, and F Blocks. In 1999, the Commission completed a subsequent
auction of C, D, E, and F Block licenses. Of the 57 winning bidders in
that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
97. In 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F
Block Broadband PCS licenses (Auction 35). Of the 35 winning bidders in
that auction, 29 claimed small or very small businesses status.
Subsequent events concerning that Auction, including judicial and
agency determinations, resulted in only a portion of those C and F
Block licenses being available for grant. The Commission completed an
auction of 188 C Block licenses and 21 F Block licenses in 2005. Of the
24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status
and won 156 licenses. In 2007, the Commission completed an auction of
licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks. Of the 12 winning bidders in that
auction, five claimed small business status and won 18 licenses. Most
recently, in 2008, the Commission completed the auction of C, D, E, and
F Block Broadband PCS licenses. Of the eight winning bidders for
Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business
status and won 14 licenses.
98. Advanced Wireless Services. In 2006, the Commission conducted
its first auction of Advanced Wireless Services licenses in the 1710-
1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1), designated as Auction 66. For
the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $15 million. In Auction 66, 31 winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses and won 142 licenses. Twenty-six of
the winning bidders identified themselves as small businesses and won
73 licenses. In a subsequent 2008 auction, the Commission offered 35
AWS-1 licenses. Four winning bidders identifying themselves as very
small businesses won 17 licenses, and three winning bidders identifying
themselves as a small business won five AWS-1 licenses.
99. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding
[[Page 2629]]
$40 million for the preceding three years. A ``very small business'' is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15
million for the preceding three years. Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz
Service had a third category of small business status for Metropolitan/
Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses --``entrepreneur''--which is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3
million for the preceding three years. The SBA approved these small
size standards.
100. An auction of 740 licenses was conducted in 2002 (one license
in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six
Economic Area Groupings (EAGs). Of the 740 licenses available for
auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of
the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business, or
entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A second auction
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. In 2005, the Commission
completed an auction of 5 licenses in the lower 700 MHz band (Auction
60). All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
101. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of A, B and
E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in 2008. Twenty
winning bidders claimed small business status. Thirty three winning
bidders claimed very small business status.
102. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz band
licenses. In 2008, the Commission conducted Auction 73 in which C and D
block licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available. Three winning
bidders claimed very small business status.
103. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission adopted small
business size standards for the purpose of determining eligibility for
bidding credits in auctions of Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The
Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. The
Commission defined a ``very small business'' as an entity that together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. The
SBA has approved these small business size standards for both the 800
MHz and 900 MHz SMR Service. The first 900 MHz SMR auction was
completed in 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small
businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 licenses in the
900 MHz SMR band. In 2004, the Commission held a second auction of 900
MHz SMR licenses and three winning bidders identifying themselves as
very small businesses won 7 licenses. The auction of 800 MHz SMR
licenses for the upper 200 channels was conducted in 1997. Ten bidders
claiming that they qualified as small or very small businesses under
the $15 million size standard won 38 licenses for the upper 200
channels. A second auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses was conducted in
2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business
status won five licenses.
104. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR licenses for the General
Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders who won 108
licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band
qualified as small or very small businesses. In an auction completed in
2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels
of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19
claimed small or very small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus,
combining all three auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic
licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed to be small businesses.
105. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues
not exceeding $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues.
In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the
remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by
small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the
SBA.
106. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA approved these
definitions.
107. The Commission conducted an auction of geographic area
licenses in the WCS service in 1997. In the auction, seven bidders that
qualified as very small business entities won licenses, and one bidder
that qualified as a small business entity won a license.
108. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for firms in this category, which is: All such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 912 had employment of less than 500,
and an additional 27 had employment of 500 or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
109. Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation. Air transportation
entities, specifically airlines, are implicated only to the extent that
the Commission adopts the proposal to permit airlines to provide mobile
wireless services. This proposal would give airlines the choice of
whether to enable mobile communications services using an Airborne
Access System, as well as the specific services to enable. All elements
of the Airborne Access Systems and any permissible airborne mobile
devices would be subject to applicable FAA and DoT rules and approval
procedures.
110. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: This U.S.
industry comprises establishments primarily
[[Page 2630]]
engaged in providing air transportation of passengers or passengers and
freight over regular routes and on regular schedules. Establishments in
this industry operate flights even if partially loaded. Scheduled air
passenger carriers including commuter, and helicopter carriers (except
scenic and sightseeing) are included in this industry. The SBA has
developed a size standard for this industry, which is, all
establishments having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census
Bureau information for 2007, 2,569 establishments operated in that
year. Of that number, 1,742 operated with more than 1,000 employees.
Based on this data, we estimate that 827, or approximately 31 percent
of these establishments, are small. However, it must be understood that
since use of the technology necessary to provide mobile communications
services on aircraft is permissive rather than compulsory, no data are
available to indicate what percentage of all such passenger-carrying
airlines establishments will use this technology after their part 87
licenses are modified. Accordingly, the Commission cannot project at
this time what percentage of all such licensees will be small passenger
air transportation establishments.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
111. Under the Commission's proposal, all Airborne Access System
devices must comply with technical and operational requirements,
including: Measures that may be taken to limit power include, but are
not necessarily limited to, mobile power restrictions, aircraft
picocell power restrictions, network control unit power and/or
technology limitations, altitude restrictions, and methods to prevent
an airborne mobile phone from accessing the ground-based commercial
mobile networks.
112. While our proposals would require small airline businesses to
modify their existing part 87 licenses if they want to provide mobile
communications services on aircraft, airlines are not required to
install and operate mobile communications services on aircraft
Licensees would be permitted to contract with third parties to install
equipment for or offer mobile communications services on aircraft. In
addition, modifying existing aircraft fleet or station licenses to
include proposed mobile communications services on aircraft use should
not impose significant administrative burdens on airlines, and they
would have the opportunity for an additional revenue stream. On
balance, this would constitute a significant benefit for small
business.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
113. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
developing its approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
114. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes that domestic aircraft
operators that want to offer mobile communications services on aircraft
be required to file for a modification of their existing aircraft
station or fleet licenses to include the newly designated use. Also,
terrestrial commercial mobile providers would have the option of
entering into permissive commercial contracts with airlines to provide
access to wireless subscriber services.
115. The NPRM specifically solicits alternative licensing
proposals, especially those that would not incur significant and undue
adverse impacts on small entities. We also specifically solicit comment
regarding the affect our proposals may have on small business entities
that may lack the financial and technical resources necessary to deploy
mobile communications services on aircraft. We seek comment on factors
that may minimize any undue impacts on parties, including small and
very small businesses, that may be affected by our proposals. For
example, we request comment on whether our proposals have a
disproportionate financial impact on small businesses, e.g. smaller air
carriers as compared to larger entities, e.g. large airlines. Will our
proposals affect the ability of small businesses to compete with larger
entities that may more easily afford to deploy an Airborne Access
System? If so, we request comment on whether there are factors that
could offset such impact. For example, could a small business enter
into business agreements with other entities that would make the
provision of mobile communications services more feasible for such
entities? We seek comment on how to lessen potential burdens on these
small carriers, including any factors or arrangements that could make
the provision of mobile communications services more practical for
small entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
116. 14 CFR 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
117. This NPRM seeks comment on potential new or revised
information collection requirement(s). If the Commission adopts any new
or revised information collection requirement(s), the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
VI. Ordering Clauses
118. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 11, 303(r), 303(y), 308, 309, and 332 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 161,
303(r), 303(y), 308, 309, and 332, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is hereby adopted.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 27, 87, and 90
Radio.
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 27, and 90
Communications common carriers.
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, 87, and 90
Communications equipment.
47 CFR Part 87
Air transportation.
47 CFR Part 24
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 90
Business and industry.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 22, 24, 27,
87, and 90 as follows:
[[Page 2631]]
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
0
2. Section 22.925 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.925 Airborne operation of mobile devices
Devices using frequencies licensed under this subpart are
prohibited from operating onboard airborne aircraft except as
authorized by Sec. 87.205, et seq.
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
3. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309, and 332.
0
4. Section 24.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.3 Permissible communications.
PCS licensees may provide any mobile communications service on
their assigned spectrum. Fixed services may be provided on a co-primary
basis with mobile operations. Broadcasting as defined in the
Communications Act is prohibited. Devices using frequencies licensed
under this rule part are prohibited from operating onboard airborne
aircraft except as authorized by Sec. 87.205, et seq.
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
5. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, 1403, 1404, and 1451 unless otherwise noted.
0
6. Section 27.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.2 Permissible communications.
(a) Miscellaneous wireless communications services. Except as
provided in paragraph (b), (d), or (e) of this section and subject to
technical and other rules contained in this part, a licensee in the
frequency bands specified in Sec. 27.5 may provide any services for
which its frequency bands are allocated, as set forth in the non-
Federal Government column of the Table of Allocations in Sec. 2.106 of
this chapter (column 5).
* * * * *
(f) Devices using frequencies licensed under this part are
prohibited from operating onboard airborne aircraft except as
authorized by Sec. 87.205, et seq.
PART 87--AVIATION SERVICES
0
7. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307 (e) unless otherwise
noted.
0
8. Add Sec. Sec. 87.205 through 87.207 and the undesignated center
heading ``Airborne Mobile Service'' to Subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F--Aircraft Stations
Sec.
* * * * *
Airborne Mobile Service
87.205 Scope of service.
87.206 Frequencies.
87.207 Technical requirements.
Sec. 87.205 Scope of service.
Aircraft Station Licensees shall be permitted to provide mobile
broadband service under this rule part subject to the following
conditions:
(a) Mobile broadband services shall be authorized only within
aircraft cabins;
(b) Mobile broadband service shall be authorized only over the
frequencies designated in Sec. 87.206;
(c) Aircraft station licensees must utilize an airborne access
system that complies with the technical rules set forth in Sec.
87.207.
(d) The Airborne Mobile Service shall be authorized only at
altitudes above 3,048 meters (~10,000) feet. No transmissions shall be
authorized over designated frequencies below this altitude.
Sec. 87.206 Frequencies.
The frequencies 698-757 MHz, 775-787 MHz, SMR spectrum within the
bands (806-824 MHz, 851-869 MHz, 896-901 MHz, and 935-940 MHz), 824-849
MHz, 869-894 MHz, 1850-1915 MHz, 1930-1995 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 2000-
2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, 2305-2320 MHz, and 2345-2360
MHz are authorized for airborne in-cabin use consistent with the
requirements and Sec. 87.205, et seq.
Sec. 87.207 Technical requirements.
Airborne access systems on licensed aircraft must:
(a) Utilize only frequencies authorized in Sec. 87.206 for the
provision of Airborne Mobile Service;
(b) Manage all in-cabin transmissions from mobile devices
transmitting on frequencies listed in Sec. 87.206;
(c) Prevent in-cabin mobile devices transmitting on frequencies
listed in Sec. 87.206 from operating at power levels sufficient to
potentially cause harmful interference to terrestrial mobile networks;
(d) Ensure that each transmitting component of the airborne access
system maintains minimal emissions, as measured outside the aircraft
cabin, to ensure that airborne operations do not cause harmful
interference to terrestrial mobile networks;
(e) Otherwise comply with technical rules applicable to terrestrial
base stations operating on the frequencies listed in Sec. 87.206;
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
9. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
0
10. Section 90.423 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 90.423 Airborne operation of mobile devices.
Devices using frequencies licensed under this rule part are
prohibited from operating onboard airborne aircraft except as
authorized by Sec. 87.205, et seq.
[FR Doc. 2013-31203 Filed 1-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P